Time Trial Discussion [Archive]

[Dalone]

I was lucky enough to be gifted the Ferrari only a week after it was put in the game. I've since then saved Cr. in numerous ways (a little of repetitive grinding here and there, but mostly general gameplay) and have bought myself the Jag XJ13, the Ford MkIV, and the Miura so far.

I still have not completed the Hamilton DLC just yet. only the last three to do.

Well I see you are doing very well in the P4, sitting in 5th position.
I have a bit of catching up to do, I'm currently #101 with 3:34.757, miles behind you, ok for a pauper though.

 

[lfm58]

Better…

 

[MIE1992]

How does it help to raise the front of the 330 P4 while lowering the rear? Is it a physics bug/exploit, or is there actual physics behind that?

Also, I'd imagine you'd wanna minimize the downforce, right? Maybe leave a tiny bit for the Porsche curves and whatnot, but otherwise, I would think those sliders would almost be entirely to the left. Though I would've thought you'd also want to especially leave some downforce for the rear, given that the 330 P4's drivetrain would make it more prone to oversteer - or at least, I'd think so.

 

[praiano63]

How does it help to raise the front of the 330 P4 while lowering the rear? Is it a physics bug/exploit, or is there actual physics behind that?

It seems to work according to real physics to me.
Raising the front low the aerofoils incidence giving less aerodinamic resistance increasing speed.
T.O.E also positive or negative reduce the top speed in a smaller amount .
I'm not a real car physics specialist but you can see it perfectly happening in the long le le mans straight.

 

[Sean YZF]

Had 17 million in the bank, sold a few cars and now I'm skint
Put 1st few laps in and it drives canny well, lots of time to gain, good challenge as next week's daily's aren't looking good.
& I'll prob never have such a high rating on the leader board

 

[Pearl Jam]

Well I caved in, decimated my garage and managed to scrape 20 mil for the Ferrari and it’s a joy to drive, however I’m losing time on the Mulsanne Straight, the top times are touching 200mph plus but I can only manage 193/194 mph tops even with using @praiano63 tune, any idea why guys?

 

[Sean YZF]

I keep getting track limit pens around Arnage to Porsche Curves, doesn't look like I'm near track limits, having to take it slow there until I figure out my mistake. Need a few more clean laps before I apply praiano63's tune. 👍

Edit. Sussed it, I was too far to the right for the left hander

 

[Sean YZF]

Well I caved in, decimated my garage and managed to scrape 20 mil for the Ferrari and it’s a joy to drive, however I’m losing time on the Mulsanne Straight, the top times are touching 200mph plus but I can only manage 193/194 mph tops even with using @praiano63 tune, any idea why guys?

Just realised we're friends.
Bugger you're quick off the mark at this challenge

 

[Pearl Jam]

Just realised we're friends.
Bugger you're quick off the mark at this challenge

haha, cheers fella..to be honest,I like doing time trials more than the dailies since there’s only one idiot on the track at a time.
It’s a great car to drive once you get used to it and I’m sure there’s a bit more to come off the time if I can find a way to get the top speed up

 

[sirjim73]

Just realised we're friends.
Bugger you're quick off the mark at this challenge

Tell me about it! @Pearl Jam is always way ahead of me on these...

I need to find someone at my own level (about 4 seconds slower than him) to compete with

Send me a FR at cutback73 @Sean YZF ?

Pearl Jam - now you've got the Ferrari, you can get some of those cars back by running the Professional GT League Nostalgia events. They get you 160k each race (240k with CRB) for 10 minutes work 👍

 

[koshmare]

Made with praiano63 setup

God bless 330 P4 cost

 

[Sean YZF]

Chipping away at my time in the Ferrari. I found it a tad too twitchy with my driving style using @praiano63 full tune. Have put the suspension back to std and will try increasing in increments until I get used to it.
Watched a few playbacks of other racers too. How do you get away with using that much kerb ? I keep getting penalties whenever I try it
In the top 400, which is a 1st for me 👍

Lacking in top speed too, 321 kmh = 200 mph, I'm topping out at 194 mph with the full tune. I run traction control but that shouldn't affect max speed.

 

[billdan]

If you have the downforce low ( 150/300 ) you should easily be over 320Kmh (200mph).

Make sure your 5th gear is not valve bouncing, should be set to 370 plus.
Check to see your Power is set to 448 bhp.

That's all I can think of, as to why you can't go faster than 194mph.

 

[billdan]

Yes the penalties suck at La Sarthe, you get a good lead on the downloaded ghost and then you cop a penalty and its back to Restart.

 

[sirjim73]

3m39.0 - I find the downforce adjustment in tuning to be a double edged sword.

With low down force, faster top speed on the straight, but much slower in corners as the car is much more skitty.

With high down force, I get the opposite effect.

These pros and cons seem to cancel each other out for me, as I get a similar overall time, either way. Maybe I'll try downforce in the middle next time

 

[Sean YZF]

Thanks for everyone's help.
Downforce 150 300.
Max speed set to 230 mph is giving 197 mph without hitting the rev limiter. Last few mph prob down to fine adjustment of gear ratios 👍

 

[Sean YZF]

Managed 3.34.17 which was good for top 150, unheard of for me, prob the price of the car, ha.
Possibly mid 33 achievable if I can nail both chicanes instead of just one.
Gearing making no further difference to top speed, still at 197 mph.
Going to start changing suspension setup and raise the front etc as reccomended

Edit. Aye, nose up arse down makes 201 mph achievable, don't know if I can get used to the handling though. Nowt else planned for the week

 

[Dalone]

3:32.173 for #69 in the Ferrari.

 

[Pearl Jam]

The rarified air of the top 100 although I’m sure I’ll be knocked out of it by the end..absolutely loving the P4, it’s a joy to drive.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

How does it help to raise the front of the 330 P4 while lowering the rear? Is it a physics bug/exploit, or is there actual physics behind that?

Also, I'd imagine you'd wanna minimize the downforce, right? Maybe leave a tiny bit for the Porsche curves and whatnot, but otherwise, I would think those sliders would almost be entirely to the left. Though I would've thought you'd also want to especially leave some downforce for the rear, given that the 330 P4's drivetrain would make it more prone to oversteer - or at least, I'd think so.

It seems to work according to real physics to me.
Raising the front low the aerofoils incidence giving less aerodinamic resistance increasing speed.
T.O.E also positive or negative reduce the top speed in a smaller amount .
I'm not a real car physics specialist but you can see it perfectly happening in the long le le mans straight.

I'm no Adrian Newey but logically, in real life raising the front will cause a whole lot of air to get trapped underneath the car and increase drag considerably. The whole car's underside becomes a big parachute basically. At best you'll just slow down, at worst you'll become a pilot ala Mark Webber in Lemans 1999

The "wheelie" trick is a well known method to get higher top speeds in GT game. If you put front height max and rear min you'll always get a few kmh extra. In previous games you could even glitch it even more by putting max rear downforce, and the car will just take off and reach infinite top speed (or as high as the speedo allows).




I think from PS3 era you can't do this anymore, but the extra few kmh remains valid. One of theories I've heard is because PD modelled the downforce of the car as a simple force vector perpendicular to the car's body. So if you tilt the car in reverse rake, the downforce becomes a pushing forward force which exponentially increases with speed.

Normal ride height
DF
V
--- (car body representation)


Reverse rake
\ <-- DF

 

[Dalone]

I'm no Adrian Newey but logically, in real life raising the front will cause a whole lot of air to get trapped underneath the car and increase drag considerably. The whole car's underside becomes a big parachute basically. At best you'll just slow down, at worst you'll become a pilot ala Mark Webber in Lemans 1999

The "wheelie" trick is a well known method to get higher top speeds in GT game. If you put front height max and rear min you'll always get a few kmh extra. In previous games you could even glitch it even more by putting max rear downforce, and the car will just take off and reach infinite top speed (or as high as the speedo allows).




I think from PS3 era you can't do this anymore, but the extra few kmh remains valid. One of theories I've heard is because PD modelled the downforce of the car as a simple force vector perpendicular to the car's body. So if you tilt the car in reverse rake, the downforce becomes a pushing forward force which exponentially increases with speed.

Normal ride height
DF
V
--- (car body representation)


Reverse rake
\ <-- DF

Thanks for posting, brings back some great memories.

Currently #68 in the P4 with 3:31.777.

 

[MIE1992]

Yeah, but the other poster seems to make sense, mentioning how by raising the front and lowering the rear, you can lower the downforce a little more. Maybe there's enough downforce to keep the car planted, but there's still enough of a decrease in downforce to get a little more speed?

Still, I was thinking of tinkering with the ride height and downforce so that I could potentially be faster through that first section and the Porsche curves. What if I, say, just lowered the ride height on both ends all the way? Could the drag from the aerodynamics (even when downforce is minimized) be compensated with the right gearing, as well? It feels like the car tops out at around 200mph, anyway.

 

[Dalone]

Yeah, but the other poster seems to make sense, mentioning how by raising the front and lowering the rear, you can lower the downforce a little more. Maybe there's enough downforce to keep the car planted, but there's still enough of a decrease in downforce to get a little more speed?

Still, I was thinking of tinkering with the ride height and downforce so that I could potentially be faster through that first section and the Porsche curves. What if I, say, just lowered the ride height on both ends all the way? Could the drag from the aerodynamics (even when downforce is minimized) be compensated with the right gearing, as well? It feels like the car tops out at around 200mph, anyway.

If I remember correctly this high front low rear business started in GT6.
In any case it was generally accepted that it was simply a mistake by the maker, which for some strange reason, has never been corrected.

Your car will be viewed in replay as high front low rear, but in actual fact is the opposite. Try it out on some ordinary cars and see how it affects them.

 

[MIE1992]

Your car will be viewed in replay as high front low rear, but in actual fact is the opposite. Try it out on some ordinary cars and see how it affects them.

What do you mean? Do you mean that when I raise the front and lower the rear, the car will behave like I did like opposite when I’m driving? Wouldn’t that also mean that it’d be more stable in the straights? At any rate, I’ll experiment with raising the rear and lowering the front, and see what happens in my experience. But what about simply lowering both the front and rear equally to be lower?

Here is a new setup "take off mode" ride height max front mini rear.
324 kmh in the straight that make the difference. Still turning well. .....
I have a 3.28.6xx with it but still room nailing all all the lap.
View attachment 903442

Can you explain your settings for camber and the anti-roll bars? Heck, could you explain your tune in general, aside from the exploit with the ride height? I understand that part. I also get that minimal downforce is ideal for Le Mans without the chicane.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Yeah, but the other poster seems to make sense, mentioning how by raising the front and lowering the rear, you can lower the downforce a little more. Maybe there's enough downforce to keep the car planted, but there's still enough of a decrease in downforce to get a little more speed?

Still, I was thinking of tinkering with the ride height and downforce so that I could potentially be faster through that first section and the Porsche curves. What if I, say, just lowered the ride height on both ends all the way? Could the drag from the aerodynamics (even when downforce is minimized) be compensated with the right gearing, as well? It feels like the car tops out at around 200mph, anyway.

How exactly does reverse rake lower downforce? Prairano said it reduces the angle of attack of the wing, but there's not that many downforce generating elements on the 330 P4, only 2 small slats on the front. IRL this car probably wouldn't even generate any meaningful downforce (only negative lift) and yet PD in classic fashion gives it more downforce than some modern day supercars designed in wind tunnels.

And top speed really isn't dependent on downforce. It's dependent on DRAG. Downforce generation just happens to generate drag as a side effect (unless it's underbody downforce, or generated by a fan ala Brabham BT46/Chapparal 2J/RB X cars). Raising the front creates a huge amount of drag because the air is trapped under the car like a scoop.

Tinkering with gearing won't create more speed. With prairano's tune the car is already sitting at the rpm for max power. The only way you could increase top speed at this point is adding power or removing downforce/drag, which we can't do anymore than the current tune.

The other "glitch" side effect with ride height Dalone mentioned is how it affects under/oversteer. In real life reverse rake would create understeer, but in GT games it has always created oversteer for some reason. Just go back to the previous TT replays with understeery cars (Civic at Willow, GTO at Yamagiwa) and you'll see everyone doing reverse rake. You can try this on your own as well (Civic full power on CS tyre, try full reverse rake and normal rake).

The tuning numbers in GT has always been borked. We don't even know what the damper/ARB/LSD/downforce units are Sometimes the effects don't work as in real life. The only way to tune is by trial and error, and sometimes completely different values can give perfectly suitable handling cars when IRL it would completely take the car out of the operating window. Don't try to make sense of it as it will just confuse what you read on real life principles.

 

[Dalone]

What do you mean? Do you mean that when I raise the front and lower the rear, the car will behave like I did like opposite when I’m driving? Wouldn’t that also mean that it’d be more stable in the straights? At any rate, I’ll experiment with raising the rear and lowering the front, and see what happens in my experience. But what about simply lowering both the front and rear equally to be lower?
Yes, the best option is to try different things and see how they perform for your driving style, because often what works for one may not work so well for another.

Just tried to do a lap (Praiano tune) with front ride height at lowest (70) and rear at highest (140).
Now front at lowest etc should give you awesome grip, and the replay shows the front far lower than the rear, but you actually get the opposite.
A fast turn will see you just run off the track as there is so little grip at the front, due to it actually being raised as high as it can go, therefore there is very little pushing the wheels down onto the track.

It's a glitch of sorts which I think was dealt with extensively on this forum in the past.
For ride height you must reverse the measurements, high means low and low means high.

 

[koshmare]

What brake balance best for Ford GT40?

 

[Dalone]

What brake balance best for Ford GT40?

Haven't done Willow Springs for about a week now and are currently #161, however I looked at my BB and it was -1.
I'd suggest trying that and even a bit more to the left and see how you go.

Just took a few more tenths off in the Ferrari, now 3:30.950 for #43.

 

[koshmare]

I'm 278th 1:23.121 with BB-5 right now.

 

[MIE1992]

How exactly does reverse rake lower downforce? Prairano said it reduces the angle of attack of the wing, but there's not that many downforce generating elements on the 330 P4, only 2 small slats on the front. IRL this car probably wouldn't even generate any meaningful downforce (only negative lift) and yet PD in classic fashion gives it more downforce than some modern day supercars designed in wind tunnels.

And top speed really isn't dependent on downforce. It's dependent on DRAG. Downforce generation just happens to generate drag as a side effect (unless it's underbody downforce, or generated by a fan ala Brabham BT46/Chapparal 2J/RB X cars). Raising the front creates a huge amount of drag because the air is trapped under the car like a scoop.

Tinkering with gearing won't create more speed. With prairano's tune the car is already sitting at the rpm for max power. The only way you could increase top speed at this point is adding power or removing downforce/drag, which we can't do anymore than the current tune.

The other "glitch" side effect with ride height Dalone mentioned is how it affects under/oversteer. In real life reverse rake would create understeer, but in GT games it has always created oversteer for some reason. Just go back to the previous TT replays with understeery cars (Civic at Willow, GTO at Yamagiwa) and you'll see everyone doing reverse rake. You can try this on your own as well (Civic full power on CS tyre, try full reverse rake and normal rake).

The tuning numbers in GT has always been borked. We don't even know what the damper/ARB/LSD/downforce units are Sometimes the effects don't work as in real life. The only way to tune is by trial and error, and sometimes completely different values can give perfectly suitable handling cars when IRL it would completely take the car out of the operating window. Don't try to make sense of it as it will just confuse what you read on real life principles.

It almost makes me wonder if tuning is just an afterthought for PD, and they’d rather focus on stuff like the driving. Hopefully they’ll fix the reverse rake exploit in the next game, and fix (or add) a bunch of other stuff while they’re at it.

For example, I like the idea of each car having realistic transmission types and assists when driven stock, complete with a way to map a button for the clutch.

EDIT: If PD was smart, they'd be taking notes from the tunes being used for the Time Trials and fixing the tuning issues, either in an update for GTS, or in the next game. What a joke, for GT to call itself "The Real Driving Simulator" when it still has issues like this. I can only hope the larger staff will help with these issues when the next installment comes out.