Tuner Challenge Championship ~ April McLaren MP4

  • Thread starter Adrenaline
  • 897 comments
  • 75,082 views
My tune is ready. I tuned for the "typical" track in the game. My tune should be fast at 90% of the tracks, o.k. for 5% of them and a lost puppy on the other 5%. Nothing over complicated. I now like the Raybrig NSX better than the Xanai Z and the Xanai GT-R. It's a really fun car, once you tame it a little.

I will test your tune anyways, but it would be a pity to cancel this round! I guess on this car the tuning makes a bigger difference, than on the Xanavi, which is a great car even with stock settings. The NSX felt not that good on that 3 laps I drove after testing the Xanavi...
 
I will test your tune anyways, but it would be a pity to cancel this round! I guess on this car the tuning makes a bigger difference, than on the Xanavi, which is a great car even with stock settings. The NSX felt not that good on that 3 laps I drove after testing the Xanavi...

My Raybrig tune is faster than my Xanai Z tune by a long shot. A little less forgiving, but I could put down consistently faster lap times with the NSX.
 
Mini Reviews: (in order of testing)
Track: Trial Mountain

Stock(w/max downforce): Ran 15 laps to get back in the groove, as I haven't even played GT5 in over 2 weeks now. Stock the car feels great. It has some strong but controllable throttle oversteer, that allows you to get to the gas earlier and let the LSD steer you out of the corner. Too much too soon and you'll spin though. Because of that, the best lap times came from early braking, a quick coast to let the car settle and then back to the gas really early, about the center of the apex. I had the stock tune run faster than 3 of the tunes, including NTwo, Motor City, and budious, but not by a very large margin, and I definitely would say the stock set up, is driver style specific, unless willing to adjust to the tune.
Best Lap: 1:16.960

E - Motor City Hami: This tune used the stock springs, so I expected a feel rather similar but I was mistaken. I found this to be the least consistent of the tunes for me, with a .5 difference between my fastest and 3rd fastest lap times. It had less 'turn in' than the stock settings on corner entry, and exit was consistent with this as well, as I again felt a tendency to understeer on exit. Although under acceleration this tune had much better forward bite that the stock set up, which was made it much more controllable and safer on acceleration. I did find that this tune also had a breaking point, where when I tried to push it too hard it would understeer as stated and then frequently snapped loose and sent me sideways. This happened a number of times. This was on both exit as well as entry, where when driving into the corner hard, the setup gave the car a RR type feel, as if it were very @$$ heavy and the rear end kind of felt like it was 'swinging' the car into corners. Again, I found myself being majorly penalized for pushing the car beyond it's limits, very unforgiving. I think this could partially be from the very low rear downforce used.
Best Lap: 1:17.626

D - Rotary Junkie: The transmission annoys me when driving this car. I mean, it works, but it just sounds like it's going slow, because it's geared very highly. I must admit though, this odd gearing set up, seemed to 'pull' harder than any other tune down the straights, not to mention this gearing allows you to slam the gas down at any point without any concern to losing traction. It does seem to lack some rotation through the center of turns, but overall was consistently quick lap after lap. This transmission setting can really help some of the heavy foot drivers with traction issues. Didn't provide the fastest lap, but did provide the fastest 3 lap average.
Best Lap: 1:16.675

F - Niigma: This tune wasn't as maneuverable as RJ's which really hindered the cars ability to keep up through the tighter sections. I felt some high speed understeer through sector 1, but even so, this tune kept pace with RJ's all the way through sectors 1 & 2, but lost time in sector 3 every time, which is what ultimately ended up being the determining factor in lap averages. Personally I felt the issue was in your LSD Initial settings being so high. Lowering it down to the 10-15 range would (by my theory) open up the diff, allowing the car to get through the tighter turns better, especially the Esses of the track. I think the 40 initial was just too locked (again, by my theory) and didn't allow the car to rotate through the turns. I will be testing this tune again with my custom LSD later on to verify this, but haven't yet.
Best Lap: 1:16.897

C - NTwo: This was a rather 'neutral' tune, which translates to understeer for me. I've always preferred my cars on the loose side. If I had to guess, I'd say this was a DS3 tune and would probably work well for DS3 users, as it's less likely to bite you for mistakes from imprecision. The understeer seemed constant through the track, regardless of high/low speeds, banking, tight, sweeping or ess curves.
Best Lap: 1:17.380

G - budious: This tune was pretty much a mirror image of NTwo's on the track, but with more understeer overall, which I think might have been due to excess front camber, resulting in all 3 laps times, being "roughly-exactly" 1 tenth slower that NTwo's. .3/.5/.7 and .4/.6/.8 respectively.
Best Lap: 1:17.427

B - NM Racing: This was a very neutral set up by my standards. This tune was easily the best through the 2nd sector, enough so, that it managed to put down the best lap time overall, despite losing time through every 3rd sector compared to RJ's sector times. Unfortunately this car has 1 little glitch that I ran into, which was that it's very unstable anytime you get 1 tire in the grass. On trial mountain there are numerous places where the grass is the fastest way around, which is what I feel cost NM Racing the gold trophy for me. On other tracks I can see NM Racing coming out on top, but oddly enough, this tune has been suffering in the hands of many other drivers, I'm not sure why.
Best Lap: 1:16.581

Personally I'll be taking tunes B, D & F (NM Racing, Rotary Junkie & Niigma) to a few tracks, where I'll install my personal LSD and the same Transmission gearing on all 3, to find out which suspension truly fits me best. Taking those 2 variables out of the equation should give me the insight to decide which single tune I'll apply universally to the car.

Current Results, as you may have guessed due to my reviews, have been quite drastically changed based on my, what appears to be reversed from most, results; and are as follows:

Code:
[B][SIZE="4"][U]Pos Tuner	Points	Behind Leader[/U]
[COLOR="Red"]D - Rotary J	30	
C - NTwo	28	2
E - Motor City	25	5
G - budious	24	6
F - Niigma	21	9
B - NM Racing	19	11[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]

Since I had the bottom 2 finish top 2, and the top 2 finish bottom 2, you can see how it's tightened and jumbled things up a bit.

Looking at the lap time/track data I can see a few trends that worry me, but I don't want to jump to conclusions, so we'll see...

There still 2 more lap averages to be added into the results before they're final. If no word from tuners by tomorrow night about the NSX, I'm going to go ahead and send out the April Info for the McLaren, call off the NSX. Though I will personally test and review both cars for the 2 that submitted and I apologize that it didn't work out, I will award you both with bonus points. At least they're highly sought after tunes that will bring your garage attention.
 
D - Rotary Junkie: The transmission annoys me when driving this car. I mean, it works, but it just sounds like it's going slow, because it's geared very highly. I must admit though, this odd gearing set up, seemed to 'pull' harder than any other tune down the straights, not to mention this gearing allows you to slam the gas down at any point without any concern to losing traction. It does seem to lack some rotation through the center of turns, but overall was consistently quick lap after lap. This transmission setting can really help some of the heavy foot drivers with traction issues. Didn't provide the fastest lap, but did provide the fastest 3 lap average.
Best Lap: 1:16.675

:D Yeah, I kinda geared it thinking of youuuuuuuuuuuuu, Mr. Automatic. It does sound like it's doing absolutely nothing, then you look over at the speedo and it's steadily climbing. Shifting at redline with closer gearing would've harmed acceleration slightly and since you can't short shift with automatic my "normal" gearing method (1st about same length as here, 6th = 4th give or take) would've been slower. The drop into 4th could've been shortened slightly for ever so slightly more pull but I decided to optimize top speed as best I could (as it stands you probably *should* shift into 5th at 184mph or so) instead.

Also, I like how the stiffest-sprung car received absolutely no demerits for it on a rough track.

C - NTwo: This was a rather 'neutral' tune, which translates to understeer for me. I've always preferred my cars on the loose side. If I had to guess, I'd say this was a DS3 tune and would probably work well for DS3 users, as it's less likely to bite you for mistakes from imprecision. The understeer seemed constant through the track, regardless of high/low speeds, banking, tight, sweeping or ess curves.
Best Lap: 1:17.380

DS3 tune indeed. I reckon N2 may overtake me as soon as far as tuning goes as he's got a DFGT... That he hasn't set up yet. >_>

I drove the tune slightly after he submitted (we actually used the same car for our tunes) and I have to say I agree with you to an extent... His seems to bite a bit from too much throttle coming out of slower corners, IMO due to the rear camber being a bit on the low side.

Looking at the lap time/track data I can see a few trends that worry me, but I don't want to jump to conclusions, so we'll see...

Hmmm?



Anyway, all in not a bad showing for anyone really. May have done better with a more conservative setup on my part, particularly with the gearing (Conservative = less "wild" numbers, not more docile), but ah well. Hoping I can stay on the podium for the next two drivers, if not, oh well. I'm painfully slow on race tires and tend to run out of talent before the tires run out of grip.
 
Hmmm I'm not the only one that likes to drive the NSX, so why not a head-to-head with the 2 tunes? The drivers have to wait for the next cars to be tunes anyway.
 
I'll post some comments from my test also, although it probably won't be as specific as Adrenaline's mini-review! 👍

Track: Suzuka (with some comments from ARM too)
Setup: DFGT, Manual Gears, ABS: 1

Suzuka is the track I've driven the most so I chose it for that reason. As a warm up I ran the default settings with maxed down-force for about 15 minutes then started testing the tunes in the order they were listed. Since Suzuka is quite long I only did warm up + 6 laps per tune, with a few "break" laps to write down times. This meant each test took 20-25 minutes or so.

As I've mentioned in earlier posts I also tested all the tunes on Autumn Ring Mini, but didn't submit those times. Mostly because I'm so new to that track that I can't really tell if it's the tune or "me" when I run good/bad laps. I ran about 100 laps stock to get used to the track, then 5 warm up/10 timed laps on each tune. I want to thank budious for suggesting it though, I quite like that little track now. :)

Stock with max down-force: Just like Adrenaline I really like the stock settings for this car, maybe due to driving style - I like to brake early and coast through corners at constant speed/steering angle rather than trail brake. It felt stable throughout and never really did anything unexpected. Some of the shift points where awkward but I was able to do lap after lap and note down good times. On ARM it was faster than all tunes.
Best Lap: 1:52.651 (ARM: 33.485)

Tune B: Felt similar to stock tune, only better. I was going slightly faster in every corner - until I hit the rev limiter on the straight. :ouch: It was still faster and more consistent than most of the tunes but I could never get a really fast best lap. Much the same on ARM, I simply went through the 10 laps at roughly the same pace as stock with no incidents but I could never match the stock tune in the final two right-handers onto the straight, maybe due to the lower down-force.
Best Lap: 1.52.801 (33.791)

Tune C: Very easy to drive, I just couldn't get it to go fast. I was doing lap after lap that felt good but still the timer stopped at 1:53.xxx. My best non-technical explanation would be that it felt like I was constantly sliding ever so slightly wide on every exit. Not out-of-control slide, just enough to delay the point where I could hit the throttle again. The feeling was less pronounced on ARM where it was consistent, just not very fast. It also had a tendency to oversteer in turn 2.
Best Lap: 1:52.927 (33.726)

Tune D: Tune D Tune D! I don't know which track you used to tune, but this one is born to run on Suzuka. The gearing is great! Every shift drops you back at almost the perfect rpm (although I shouldn't say "every" since you almost never had to change!). Why use 6 gears when all you need is 4? :) It danced through the S-curves easier than all the other tunes but I had to be just a little bit careful at turn 9 where it would sometimes go sideways if I was late on the brakes. This tune had the 4 fastest laps in my entire test. ARM was a different story though, it was still very fast but it was by far the most difficult to get around a clean lap. I would spin over and over in the first left-hander if I even looked at the brake pedal, or lifted off throttle mid-corner. This was the only tune I didn't even manage to get 10 clean laps in the 20 max laps I gave myself. 5 Decel sens + 6/9 brake balance I suspect is the reason.
Best Lap: 1:52.086 (33.706)

Tune E: Slowest of the bunch, and I put the blame almost entirely on the (lack of) rear down-force. I would be right on pace for a good 52.x lap and then I got to Spoon and and just lost tenth after tenth all the way to the finish. Only tune I had to lift at 130R. Apart from that it felt good, I didn't go near any grass or sand on Suzuka at all, just 3 clean warm ups and 6 clean timed laps. Apologies that I don't have better explanations.
Best Lap: 1:53.487 (33.856)

Tune F: After driving tune E, this felt like a raging bull that just wanted to throw me off every corner and sometimes on the straights. I would shoot out into the sand in the S's, fly wide at Dunlop, step on the gas too soon at Spoon and straddle the kerbs with two wheels in the grass, but the whole time it felt like this tune probably had the best lap time outside of tune D hidden somewhere deep inside. On my 6th and final lap I was vindicated when it posted the 5th fastest time, alas the average still suffered. On ARM however this wild bull turned into a high-speed train and power-understeered its way through any obstacle, posting the best lap times aside from the stock setup.
Best Lap: 1:52.654 (33.677)

Tune G: Felt like the stock setup but softer and "dull". Didn't really seem to go well with Suzuka because even when I did what felt like a great lap the times just didn't match. I don't really recall any details because nothing really stood out to me. It did better at ARM but was still just "middle of the pack", both in average times and best lap. Very little variation in lap times. Gearing was better than the others on this track.
Best Lap: 1:52.828 (33.763)

Whew that took a while to write. I Hope someone appreciates it although I'm not good enough at driving to get into specific details on handling like Adrenaline can. I also hope that we get some more NSX tunes, I've never really been able to handle that car and would love to try some different tunes for it!
 
Looking at the lap time/track data I can see a few trends that worry me, but I don't want to jump to conclusions, so we'll see...

There still 2 more lap averages to be added into the results before they're final. If no word from tuners by tomorrow night about the NSX, I'm going to go ahead and send out the April Info for the McLaren, call off the NSX. Though I will personally test and review both cars for the 2 that submitted and I apologize that it didn't work out, I will award you both with bonus points. At least they're highly sought after tunes that will bring your garage attention.

What's unusual about the results other that they differ drastically between courses and drivers? We know what course they tested, but perhaps you should also ask drivers to submit the type of input setup they used (DS3, wheel) in the next round.

As for the NSX, just go ahead and run with the tune I already submitted. I won't bother with that deadline extension for tweaks. On to April and McLaren.
 
What's unusual about the results other that they differ drastically between courses and drivers?

Well... that wouldn't be a big deal, if 1 driver didn't account for 42% of the data pool. The trend I see, is that by removing a single driver from the competition, 1 tuner drops 3 positions, while another jumps 4. Which leads me to believe that their data is causing inaccuracy. It's not their fault and I know it's not on purpose. It's just a natural outcome, that 1 tune will work great for a specific driver, while another won't. But in this case, those same tunes get 'rewarded' 3 times and 'penalized' 3 times in the same data. It wouldn't be as big of a deal with 10+ drivers, but with only 5 drivers it's far more noticeable.

I did get 4 new drivers signed up this week, so hopefully it won't be an issue next month.
 
This has to be me, I guess and I would only count my times for Deep Forest! Tsukuba is just far too close! First 3 tunes within 0.1 sec isn't that much! And High Speed Ring is not very good as a testtrack.

This is what happens if we can't compare laptimes. The fastest tune gets 6 points, the second tune, which is only 0.05 sec. behind still gets 5 points. If a tune is, lets say 2 sec. faster, it should get more points.
 
Doc and I are both going to do a second track, to help average things out, which are the 2 I mentioned previously.
The winner appears to be the same regardless of what way the results come together, but like I said, 1 tune gets a big help while the other suffers. But you're right about the points thing. Live and learn, for April we'll adjust accordingly.
 
Well... that wouldn't be a big deal, if 1 driver didn't account for 42% of the data pool. The trend I see, is that by removing a single driver from the competition, 1 tuner drops 3 positions, while another jumps 4. Which leads me to believe that their data is causing inaccuracy. It's not their fault and I know it's not on purpose. It's just a natural outcome, that 1 tune will work great for a specific driver, while another won't. But in this case, those same tunes get 'rewarded' 3 times and 'penalized' 3 times in the same data. It wouldn't be as big of a deal with 10+ drivers, but with only 5 drivers it's far more noticeable.

I did get 4 new drivers signed up this week, so hopefully it won't be an issue next month.

So maybe you shouldn't be counting all of the extra tracks from just two drivers? One track for each driver or at least even number of tracks for each driver? The way you have done it for this month is elevate the tunes that match the driving style of just two guys. I think you skewed your own challenge by trying to run more tracks to make up for missing drivers?
 
This has to be me, I guess and I would only count my times for Deep Forest! Tsukuba is just far too close! First 3 tunes within 0.1 sec isn't that much! And High Speed Ring is not very good as a testtrack.

This is what happens if we can't compare laptimes. The fastest tune gets 6 points, the second tune, which is only 0.05 sec. behind still gets 5 points. If a tune is, lets say 2 sec. faster, it should get more points.

I ran a racing series that used comparitive lap times to set the points. Winner got 100 points and your race time was calculated to give you a percentage of the leader. I can dig out that formula.
 
Well... that wouldn't be a big deal, if 1 driver didn't account for 42% of the data pool. The trend I see, is that by removing a single driver from the competition, 1 tuner drops 3 positions, while another jumps 4. Which leads me to believe that their data is causing inaccuracy. It's not their fault and I know it's not on purpose. It's just a natural outcome, that 1 tune will work great for a specific driver, while another won't. But in this case, those same tunes get 'rewarded' 3 times and 'penalized' 3 times in the same data. It wouldn't be as big of a deal with 10+ drivers, but with only 5 drivers it's far more noticeable.

I did get 4 new drivers signed up this week, so hopefully it won't be an issue next month.

Well that make sense, but what you're saying is despite track differences that this individuals submission on all three submissions were skewed for the same order of results, or that simply one or more tunes did better for him on tracks other than the expected result but not necessarily in the same order? It would just be easier for us to analyze if you can list all the time data you have received then we can conjecture to why that is.

Great that we got more drivers though.
 
Well that make sense, but what you're saying is despite track differences that this individuals submission on all three submissions were skewed for the same order of results, or that simply one or more tunes did better for him on tracks other than the expected result but not necessarily in the same order? It would just be easier for us to analyze if you can list all the time data you have received then we can conjecture to why that is.

Great that we got more drivers though.

I didn't want to use names as to not skew peoples opinions on the matter.

But basically it boils down to the fact, that Basilea has 1 tune with finishes of 1, 2 & 3. While the other 4 drivers have that same tune finishing, 2, 4, 6 & 6.

Then for the other tune, Basilea has them finishing 4, 5 & 6, while the other drivers have them finishing 3, 3, 3 & 4.

Like I said, it's not Basilea's fault, obviously every driver fits better with 1 or 2 tunes. The only issue, which is my fault, is that Basilea's 'preference' makes up a large section of the total data.

I don't think it's a big deal, but I noticed the trend and wanted to bring it to light. When Doc and I both add another track, Basilea's 3 will only account for 33% of the data pool, and like i mentioned previously, it appears as if the winner won't be affected, because they have 3 golds and 2 podiums, and falter on a specific aspect.

I'm interested to see that formula though, and I'll brain storm tonight, about how I did the points, maybe with more accurate scaling.
 
I'll be sending out the details for the McLaren to all Tuners on the 7th.
Tune deadline will be the 21st, 2 weeks.
Driver time dead lines will be the 7th of May and then May we'll be back on the normal schedule of the 14th/28th respectively.

The McLaren was voted as well as Max HP.
There's a few aspects I'd like to discuss.

1: Sport Soft Tires vs Racing Soft. It's an 850+hp car, is putting it on Sport Softs really the route we want to go? Up to you guys.
2: Tracks. Tracks need to be limited at least to some degree. Option 1, is a mandated track like February. Option 2 is (3) alike tracks. For Example, this type of car/power we'd offer 3 choices like... Grand Valley Speedway, Tokyo or Cape Ring Periphery.
This has a few positive points.
1: Drivers can still avoid tracks they despise, and chose their stronger suit.
2: Transmission tune will be a lot less random, knowing the max speed needed and a 3 track focus.
3: The timing system can be averaged together for all tracks that overlap and then the point system applied. E.G. 5 drivers choose GVS, their laps are all averaged together like February, 4 drivers at Cape do the same, and 3 at Tokyo. Then only 3 point additions to compensate for track differences.

3: Transmission. This is assuming we allowed all drivers to pick any track again. To avoid crazy transmission differences, I would dictate a specific Final Gear, and top speed. Then only the individual gears could be customized. This allows tuning to still be involved, but without completely making or braking any specific tune.

4: Any thoughts, complaints, ideas or recommendations you guys may personally have, that you'd like to put up for possible discussion and implementation into the competition?

Edit: Motor City Hami & budious go ahead and post your NSX tunes in your threads, I'll test them both for you later this week.
 
I will test on two tracks next month also, if that helps. I will find a few tracks that I like. The one track that I do like the most and drive the most is The Green Hell, the regular one and Type V. Other tracks I like the are Deep Forest, Monza, Fuji, Suzuka, Lundon, Rome, Autumn Ring and Tokyo Route 246.

- Jeramy
 
What about testing on 2 track of there are not 10 different tunes? One mandated like in February and one is open to the drivers, either from a group of tracks or completly random.

And what about the Raybrig NSX head-to-head now?
 
Second set of test laps are done.

Testing was done at Laguna Seca using a ds3. Times were even closer then the first test. All six tunes were within .7 seconds of one another. However the order was completely different then when I tested at Fuji. Budious went from 5th at Fuji to 1st at Laguna. RJ and Motor City went from 1st and 2nd respectively to 4th and 5th. NTwo went from 3rd at Fuji to 2nd at Laguna, thereby keeping his lead in the overall challenge.

doc

PS Thanks to all the drivers who took time to test.
 
Raybrig NSX
Chassis Stiffening
Stock HP/Weight
Oil Change
Racing Soft Tires

budious
Code:
[SIZE="3"][B]Aero: 40/65

LSD: 33/27/15

RH: -2 / -2
SR: 13.6 / 14.6
Ext: 4 / 4
Com: 4 / 4
ARB: 2 / 2

Cam: 2.5 / 1.3
Toe: 0.00 / 0.00

Brake Bal: 5 / 5

Transmission:
1st: 3.187
2nd: 2.084
3rd: 1.495
4th: 1.127
5th: 0.893
6th: 0.743
Final: 4.062
MPH: 224[/B][/SIZE]

Motor City Hami
Code:
[SIZE="3"][B]Aero : 40/65

LSD: 10/11/12

RH: -5 / -5
SR: 14.0 / 15.0
Ext: 5 / 6
Com: 4 / 4
ARB: 6 / 5

Cam: 3.0 / 2.5
Toe: -0.10 / 0.10

Brake Bal: 6 / 5

Transmission:
1st: 3.340
2nd: 2.236
3rd: 1.627
4th: 1.242
5th: 0.995
6th: 0.836
Final: 4.062
MPH: 199[/B][/SIZE]

These won't be part of the competition, but any driver interested in pitting them head to head is encouraged to do so. Write a review or comparison, whatever you please. I'd like to thank both budious and Hami for entering their tunes, I apologize that they won't be included in the competition :(
 
Last edited:
Final Results
Code:
[SIZE="3"][B][U]Pos Tuner	Points	Behind Leader[/U][COLOR="Red"]
1 - Rotary J	39	
2 - budious	34	5
3 - NTwo	34	5
4 - Niigma	30	9
5 - Motor City	29	10
6 - NM Racing	23	16[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE]
*Maximum Points Possible: 54

As you can see, we have a tie.
This is not covered in the OP therefore there is no official ruling. Other than my mini disclaimer.

So...3 options we can all vote on.
1: They both get the same points for the tie.
2: The tuner with the highest finish position per driver is awarded the higher position. If neither tune has a gold, move on to silver, bronze, etc. In the event they share the same finishing position, the quantity of said finish takes precedence. E.G. Tuner X has no golds, 2 silvers - Tuner Z has no golds, 3 silvers, tuner Z would be awarded the higher position.
3: The tuner with the fastest individual laps per driver. E.G. We had 9 drivers, Tuner X had the fastest single lap 6 times, Tuner Z had the fastest single lap 3 times. Tuner X would be awarded the higher position.
 
Last edited:
Tie. I'm not greedy, are you NTwo? :sly: (j/k) We both lost anyways, congrats RJ.

Raybrig NSX
Chassis Stiffening
Stock HP/Weight
Oil Change

These won't be part of the competition, but any driver interested in pitting them head to head is encouraged to do so. Write a review or comparison, whatever you please. I'd like to thank both budious and Hami for entering their tunes, I apologize that they won't be included in the competition.

I do believe the car comes with Race Hard, so add Race Soft as was the original guidelines for the tune submission. Also, to be clear, Chassis Stiffening = 20k CR Chassis Reinforcement, not the overpriced thing at GT Auto. Though the latter is useful, you won't need for a long while.

I'll be interested in feedback, and if you want a track specific setup don't hesitate to drop a reply.
 
Last edited:
Tie. I'm not greedy, are you NTwo? :sly: (j/k) We both lost anyways, congrats RJ.

add Race Soft

I'll be interested in feedback, and if you want a track specific setup don't hesitate to drop a reply.

1: Okay, well you were the one who was going to benefit from it, so if you're not greedy then that's all the matters.
All lap times can be seen here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...kd5Nk4zRWNDclVZdXJLMGc&hl=en&authkey=CICM7N0N
The 'tabs' are at the very bottom left of the spreadsheet.
"Lap Times" has all drivers laps, average, point value gold/silver/bronze
"Points" is the new spreadsheet I created to calculate Points rather than lap time averages like last month.
"Standings" is last months spreadsheet, and is only there because I didn't want to lose all the work in case we go back to that system. GoogleDocs appears to despise milliseconds, I can tell you that much.

2: Edited

3: I'll be doing probably the same type of reviews I did in this thread, for 4 NSX's: You, Hami, RKM & LDP despite the fact they weren't entered in the TCC. If you want to make some changes to your setup, as you mentioned earlier, shoot me a PM. I'll probably get around to this test... Thursday or Friday. Possibly tomorrow night.

Everyone please read post #706 and give me your feedback by the 7th.
 
1. The tune is possible on Sport Softs, I've had good results so far. However, it does limit the full potential for speed but I do feel Race Soft is overkill for this type of tune and can masks some problems. I'd offer a compromise and bump the tire restriction to Race Hard if that makes the task less intimidating and more useful. Race Hard tune would probably still transition down to Sport Soft well and also transition up to Race Soft equally well, win win for all end users imo.

2. I like the idea of going with three optional courses that could be categorized as similar. Probably the best solution until this contest gets more popular with the community and we have an influx of test drivers.

3. Sounds good for transmission but Top Speed slider does not limit top speed, scaling the last gear can extend or contract that figure. If you want to impose a standard transmission, I would be fine with that. I think the factory transmission is 7 speed gearbox if I remember correctly, you don't run out of gearing, custom gearbox may not even be necessary.

4. I forget what this one was about... so goodnight. :)
 
Tie. I'm not greedy, are you NTwo? :sly: (j/k) We both lost anyways, congrats RJ.

Ahaha, indeed. I'm happy with managing to put up a good enough fight this month anyways. Points don't really concern me anyways. No real opinion on the points therefore.

1: Sport Soft Tires vs Racing Soft. It's an 850+hp car, is putting it on Sport Softs really the route we want to go? Up to you guys.
2: Tracks. Tracks need to be limited at least to some degree. Option 1, is a mandated track like February. Option 2 is (3) alike tracks. For Example, this type of car/power we'd offer 3 choices like... Grand Valley Speedway, Tokyo or Cape Ring Periphery.
This has a few positive points.
1: Drivers can still avoid tracks they despise, and chose their stronger suit.
2: Transmission tune will be a lot less random, knowing the max speed needed and a 3 track focus.
3: The timing system can be averaged together for all tracks that overlap and then the point system applied. E.G. 5 drivers choose GVS, their laps are all averaged together like February, 4 drivers at Cape do the same, and 3 at Tokyo. Then only 3 point additions to compensate for track differences.

3: Transmission. This is assuming we allowed all drivers to pick any track again. To avoid crazy transmission differences, I would dictate a specific Final Gear, and top speed. Then only the individual gears could be customized. This allows tuning to still be involved, but without completely making or braking any specific tune.

4: Any thoughts, complaints, ideas or recommendations you guys may personally have, that you'd like to put up for possible discussion and implementation into the competition?

1. I'm indifferent towards this. I've only done 2 actual tunes so far (yes my Xanavi was my 2nd tune ever), so I don't have any experience with high horsepower MRs. I'll leave it for the people who know what they're talking about to decide.

2. I think I like the sound of a small selection of tracks for testers to use. The points system somewhat works, and I think there could be ways to iron it out so that lap time comes into play.

3. I use relatively tame transmission settings anyways, so a preset max speed would just save me some work. I'm fine either way.
 
I recommend race hards for the McLaren. Decent traction for a high hp car, but will show more differences in the tunes. If you go with sports softs, you'll be putting more pressure on the drivers to avoid wheel spin than on the tuners.

Adrenaline - go ahead and review my tune. I wish you would post in your reviews the type of controller you used and any adjustment settings that you have made to it. I tune with the DS3 with controller extenders. I hear from people with wheels that my tunes are more agressive. With my Xanai tune, I could not break it loose, yet your review indicated that it was loose on exit. There are just differences in driving style and controller. That's why I try to explain in my garage how to adjust things to fit ones style.
 
Back