Tuner Challenge Championship ~ April McLaren MP4

[Adrenaline]

Well, you may be a very precise driver, though there is a warm-up and fatigue period and some drivers depending on rest level may be more or less affected.

I do agree with the theory or possibility, even though it isn't true for me.
That's the reason I specifically go out of my way, every month in the drivers 'detail' email, to make a point not to run the tunes in a specific order.

This is a direct quote from March's email:

Again, carrying over from last month, I'd like to ask that everyone choose a random order to test the tunes, to prevent a learning curve advantage.

Assuming people actually pay attention, this should mean that each tune will be in the 'break in' 'prime' and 'fatigue' stage an equal amount of time for each different driver.

Furthermore, I've even requested that people run 10-15 laps on the stock tune first, to help with A: track learning curve B: Car learning Curve and C: a baseline for comparison. Not to mention, last month we let people choose the track of their choice, which should negate at least half of the track learning curve.

If you have a possible solution or at least a suggestion as to how we can fairly avoid any types of patterns that you describe, as always, I'm completely open to them.

It seems as if only a couple have chimed in about April's settings, so I suppose I'll put together what I can, and send the e-mail out tonight to Tuners.

 

[budious]

I think the current format is good, I was just saying that counting all is probably a bad idea, as is counting too few. So maybe instead of the best 3 for average, do the best 5.

 

[Adrenaline]

I think the current format is good, I was just saying that counting all is probably a bad idea, as is counting too few. So maybe instead of the best 3 for average, do the best 5.

Ohhhhh, I think you mis understood my intentions then.
I have no plans of using all laps run.
What I meant by 'sum of all times submitted' was the combined total of the 3 fastest laps, per driver, per tune.

For that last set of standings, all I did was take each tunes 9 Lap Averages (1 for each drivers 3 best laps) and add them together.
So, looking at the picture I posted in posted
For budious:
G13 (Your 3 lap average for Deep Forest)
+
G20 (Your 3 lap average for High Speed Ring)
+
G27 (Your 3 lap average for Tsukuba)
etc + etc + etc
For a combined total.
That total represents, 9 averages, of 27 laps.

Does that make more sense?

 

[Motor City Hami]

McLaren MP4 handles like Yellow Bird.

You may need to rethink the sport soft tire or allow the DS3 drivers to use traction control at 1. TCS at 1 is no different than allowing ABS at 1. I don't know why people on these forums so proudly claim that they drive with all aids off... well... except for ABS at just one... and I have a bungie cord attached to my brake pedal... or I added a perfect pedal just to improve brake pedal feel... or I turned down the sensativity on my wheel, etc.

How did the feedback come out on the tire selection. I think I counted more votes for a racing tire. I didn't see alot of support for the sport tire. My vote is still for racing hards, which will still be a challenge for the drivers and show a wide enough gap among the tuners.

I think this car is going to challenge the tuners and really, really challenge the drivers. The stock tune is awesomely horrible. It feels pretty good for a couple of corners, then BAM... snaps loose mid corner with tons of outside wheel spin. No warning - just got a little too hard on the throttle and we're sliding.

 

[budious]

Car: McLaren MP4 12C '10
Tuning: Max HP + Oil Change + Chassis Stiffening + GT Auto Aero
Weight: Minimum. Stage 1, 2 & 3, Window Lightening, Carbon/Color Hood.
Tires: Racing Hard
Tracks: Grand Valley Speedway, Tokyo 246 & Cape Ring Periphery.
Tune Deadline: April 21st at 11:59pm PST is the latest an entry will be accepted.

From the email... but first post still says Sport Soft.

You may need to rethink the sport soft tire or allow the DS3 drivers to use traction control at 1. TCS at 1 is no different than allowing ABS at 1. I don't know why people on these forums so proudly claim that they drive with all aids off... well... except for ABS at just one...

The budious proudly uses Sport Softs without aids except ABS=1 on all his none racing cars using a DS3; if it didn't come with at least race hards then it ain't getting em'.

 

[Motor City Hami]

From the email... but first post still says Sport Soft.

Oh. The email from 2:34 this morning and now the front page does say racing hard. Thanks.

 

[jcamargos]

McLaren MP4 handles like Yellow Bird.

You may need to rethink the sport soft tire or allow the DS3 drivers to use traction control at 1. TCS at 1 is no different than allowing ABS at 1. I don't know why people on these forums so proudly claim that they drive with all aids off... well... except for ABS at just one... and I have a bungie cord attached to my brake pedal... or I added a perfect pedal just to improve brake pedal feel... or I turned down the sensativity on my wheel, etc.

How did the feedback come out on the tire selection. I think I counted more votes for a racing tire. I didn't see alot of support for the sport tire. My vote is still for racing hards, which will still be a challenge for the drivers and show a wide enough gap among the tuners.

I think this car is going to challenge the tuners and really, really challenge the drivers. The stock tune is awesomely horrible. It feels pretty good for a couple of corners, then BAM... snaps loose mid corner with tons of outside wheel spin. No warning - just got a little too hard on the throttle and we're sliding.

I agree with you, this car is so "slippery" that I am glad we get to drive it with Racing Tyres.

 

[Schadenfreude13]

I wonder if PD will update the McLaren MP4's physics now that they're actually available to the public?

Then you guys can do this challenge all over again

 

[budious]

I wonder if PD will update the McLaren MP4's physics now that they're actually available to the public?

Then you guys can do this challenge all over again

I'm sure they had them under NDA since the beginning if they included it in the game, minus any small tweaks from prototype to production.

 

[Schadenfreude13]

I'm sure they had them under NDA since the beginning if they included it in the game, minus any small tweaks from prototype to production.

Considering the various motoring/motorsport mags didn't seem to be able to get their hands on one of the prototypes until GT5 had already launched, I find it hard to believe PD spent any time at all on the track with the car, and I doubt they even had accurate specs...

 

[budious]

I think they can load a fairly predictable model of the handling into the car given the specifications on hand. Also, motoring sport magazines are going to be critiquing the car so there is going to be a longer period of fine tuning. That doesn't mean PD didn't get a chance to see an earlier prototype at a closed testing facility. If they weren't going to be accurately reflecting the production car ahead of time then it wouldn't be the first car in the game to be labeled "prototype".

 

[Adrenaline]

If it's in the game, it's because PD has the 'rights' (I can't remember the technical name).
In that type of scenario, I'm assuming they get a higher level of access, than some random magazine.

 

[Motor City Hami]

If it's in the game, it's because PD has the 'rights' (I can't remember the technical name).
In that type of scenario, I'm assuming they get a higher level of access, than some random magazine.

Let's not kid ourselves here and elevate Gran Turismo's status further than it really is. GT5 sold 6.3 million (plus) copies. Car and Driver's global readership is 10.2 million every month. Road and track is about half that. Top Gear is only like 1.8 million, but the readers of these magazines are worth more to a car company like McLaren than GT5 is. Readers of car books are a better demographic to be able to afford sports cars. A better median age, better household income and much higher ownership of 3+ cars in the garage and not to mention sports cars. I'm not saying that GT5 doesn't have people who own multiple cars, but there are far more of these guys in the car books.

 

[budious]

Two separate markets though, with GT you have opportunity to build brand value with a younger age demographic and those outside the of Car and Driver's readership base. NDAs are quite popular in the business world when two companies work jointly together so PD getting access a magazine isn't going to get shouldn't be a surprise. Anyone seriously considering buying this car is going to go pick up Car and Driver's review and then test drive one at a dealership, not go purely off the video game's representation of it, though McLaren has an interest in making that depiction as accurate as possible the first time around.

 

[Adrenaline]

Let's not kid ourselves here and elevate Gran Turismo's status further than it really is. GT5 sold 6.3 million (plus) copies. Car and Driver's global readership is 10.2 million every month. Road and track is about half that. Top Gear is only like 1.8 million, but the readers of these magazines are worth more to a car company like McLaren than GT5 is. Readers of car books are a better demographic to be able to afford sports cars. A better median age, better household income and much higher ownership of 3+ cars in the garage and not to mention sports cars. I'm not saying that GT5 doesn't have people who own multiple cars, but there are far more of these guys in the car books.

While your logic is sound, all of those mentioned magazines will get all of the information when it best benefits McLaren: once the car is available for sale. likewise I feel it would best benefit McLaren, to allow a video game simulator, such as GT5, to have that information earlier, so that the game could properly display the cars best qualities.

I mean, I don't have the money to buy these exotic cars, but the first thing I thought to myself when I drove the Veyron and the LFA, is 'God, I hope it doesn't drive like this in real life, I'd be pissed the **** off!" I assume a few other had similar thoughts to many cars, regardless of whether or not they can afford the car.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Fellas... it's a video game. Most people in the ranks of management at car companies are 60 years old. O.k., some sports car companies may have a 49 or 50 year old running things, but video games (o.k. a racing simulator) are likely low in their thought processes. I work in the business and call on people like this.

A live test at Nurburgring pushed with some PR and viral videos will reach faaaaarrrrrr more than GT5 can and will be seen as more credible by potential customers. Yes, video games can help to begin building longer term branding images, but not likely to drive an actual sale.

Car magazines are often brought in earlier in the process in today's world. I am currently organizing a ride and drive in Korea of never seen before product and the press has an embargo not to show anything for a period of time.

As for the Veyron, people buy that based on status, uniqueness and sheer power numbers. I doubt that many of the real world owners will find the opportunity to push the car as hard as we can in a video game.

 

[budious]

So we have a speculation versus speculation argument... maybe the gods at PD will answer! If we were talking about EA approaching McLaren and asking for a test drive I'd be inclined to agree, but we're talking about PD, the defacto standard in the console racing market.

 

[Basilea]

I opened a poll on how to choose tracks. I hope everyone is fine with this!

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=199872

 

[budious]

I opened a poll on how to choose tracks. I hope everyone is fine with this!

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=199872

Good idea, but the methodology is the problem rather than the tracks. Blind tune is just not applicable everywhere, end of discussion.

For next month, let's do a Dirt or Snow rally tune.

As for the McLaren MP4... I think we should stick to tracks that are relatively flat, a car with max HP and full weight reduction with no real adjustable front aero options likes to launch off every little crest, and no... Race Softs don't address lack of aerodynamics. You can jack the rear aero up but all that does is make it stick the nose higher into the air. You can brake before the crest obviously and shift some weight and keep the nose down but for where reliability of results is concerned and driver skill is highly variable lets not make it more difficult than it should need to be.

In other words... let's find a substitute for Cape Ring Periphery, while it's fun and all to get big air, it's not beneficial for measuring lap times. Another city course like Special Stage 5 or Rome Circuit would be a more consistent fit with the first two.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I opened a poll on how to choose tracks. I hope everyone is fine with this!

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=199872

Thought this was already decided for this month? Adrenaline sent the three tracks for the comptetion in the tuner email. The three tracks are Grand Valley, Tokyo and Cape Ring Periphery.

 

[Motor City Hami]

For next month, let's do a Dirt or Snow rally tune.

A rally car could be fun. I don't think that I am very good at rally cars, but would like to see where I stack up. I don't know if it is my lack of good dirt tuning or if all rally cars slide around a bit and I just don't enjoy them.

 

[budious]

Ballast System has a "glitch"

As an official policy of the tuning contest rules, we should probably ban all ballast use for the foreseeable future until such time as PD patches the physics if ever.

 

[Motor City Hami]

This competition is not done in endurance mode and all cars are tested within the same 10 lap span, so is there really an issue? Seems that all tunes would be on an equal playing field?

 

[budious]

This competition is not done in endurance mode and all cars are tested within the same 10 lap span, so is there really an issue? Seems that all tunes would be on an equal playing field?

If you read the update at top and why I changed the thread topic is because it does work in offline mode. Anyways, all you need to know is below.

For drag racing, put 0 weight, and ballast position 50. This is a easy trick to gain a little bit better traction. Depending how your suspension is set up, you will either feel much better traction, or just slightly..

Interesting, I had noted a similar flaw with setting a 1KG ballast which had shown significant improvements in endurance mode. I should have been more thorough with my testing though, as even using your method showed a significant improvement in offline practice mode.

Endurance Physics has a "glitch" thread. Think'll just change it to "Ballast System has a "glitch"...

I have been working the on the McLaren MP4-12C for the tuning contest and had my build down and running pretty consistently on R246. X:YY:ZZZ" lap times all within a range of 1" on a 10 lap run. Trying the 0KG ballast at -50 I set my new best lap time record with the car and the cold runs (first two laps) showed the most gains. Once the tires warmed the advantage of the ballast glitch was less obvious but it still got the best lap time award, consistently about .5" faster on average for laps. Good find and thanks for sharing.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

@budious: It's not really a glitch, the weight placement slider has effected weight balance without any actual ballast since its introduction in GT4.

 

[budious]

That sounds like a glitch, and I was about to repost with the same conclusion.

I took my tune for R246 to Trial Mountain, and it drove like crap. I put the +50 0kg ballast on and it drove even more like crap. However, I slide change it to +10 0kg and my car suddenly became much more balanced for Trial Mountain. So I completely agree it is manipulating the natural weight distribution of the car's stock weight. Whether that is intentional (I find that hard to believe) or a glitch, it should be banned either way. I'd be inclined to say glitch as GT5 did not ship with the ballast feature; and bowing to pressure, rushed a copy paste job of the broken GT4 code back into GT5 as a patch feature.

If a driver uses a test car online in a weight restricted room and then removes the weight rather than defaulting the ballast and then drives one of our tunes it could either have a beneficial or detrimental impact on the outcomes.

Adrenaline should probably start including a "Use the 'return to defaults' button in ballast" notice line along with the tune distributions. I'm not even sure manually returning the position to 0 has the same effect as returning to defaults because it still feels a bit off.

 

[Adrenaline]

It may be a glitch, it may not, I like the idea of being able to move weight, without adding more than what's already there. Like... Cross, Wedge, Track bar, those type of things. They're far more common in my world of circle tracking, but I think it's great to see manipulation for road course use, without the requirement of adding more weight.

I think it also offers tools for tuners.
Build a set up, then "for people who like a free'r feel, place the 0 ballast at X" People who prefer a neutral feel, leave it at 0, if you like a stable feel, place 0 at Y"

I haven't tried it at all, but I can see it being a useful tool, to easily account for driving preferences.

As for Aprils Challenge, 0kg will be used at the 0 position.
If you guys want to discuss the use of it for future months, then by all means I'm willing to hear the pros/cons. I'd also like to see a debate on whether to move to the PP system.
All non-removeable parts will be required, but ballast and power limiter as well as other parts are at your own disposal, as long as you remain within the PP limit.

Example: Weight Reduction 1, 2 & 3
Chassis Stiffening
Engine Tuning 1, 2 & 3.
All other parts are optional, as well as the ability to use the limiter or ballast to get back to the chosen PP.

Just an idea, as we see the PP system pan out.

 

[budious]

I disagree with the use of the ballast in this way because there would be no equivalent function on a real car. Now, I am usually the first to say that GT in no way represents reality when it comes to tuning, but this is taking my opinion too literally just to shrug it off as an acceptable tuning practice. However, a policy allowing use of the ballast system with a minimum weight of 50KG would negate the exploitation of a fundamentally flawed system.

As for the Performance Points, I'm not entirely convinced that it is a balanced system. I think it is more prone to handicap less experienced tuners who may sacrifice performance points on aerodynamic settings being higher than the threshold for return on a power upgrade or weight reduction.

Likewise, I have to disagree with the power limiter being used an unlimited capability. All cars will end up maxed out on HP and reduced to the limit to extend the power plateau as far as possible. The alternative is to cap the power limiter to no less than 95% so that it can be used a trim mechanism in calculating HP strategy. This would allow for more low and mid rpm turbo options and wider range of parts installations to shape the power bands.

 

[Adrenaline]

I like the idea of being able to move weight, without adding more than what's already there. Like... Cross, Wedge, Track bar, those type of things. They're far more common in my world of circle tracking, but I think it's great to see manipulation for road course use, without the requirement of adding more weight.

I disagree with the use of the ballast in this way because there would be no equivalent function on a real car.

If by real car you meant non racing cars, then ignore this.
But the definition of what qualifies as real, is definitely a grey area.

 

[budious]

If by your definition then I guess we could throw tire pressure in there also, you know what I meant, no need to go so far off topic.