Tuning Garage Links & FITT Physics Discussions

[iainoflo85]

@Blood*Specter

Camber is better at 0 it seems, toe is unaffected - use whatever toe you like.
Rims don't have any effect on handling/speed/whatever. They're just cosmetic.
Flat floors reduce top speed, and increase cornering speed, but at the cost of a lot of PP.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I have not tested flat floors. I also have not done miltiple back to back tests with the different sized rims, but on the few cars I have, I did not notice any difference.

As for camber, I have tested a bunch. Zero is currently the most grip.

 

[bread82]

Agree with the above posts on the rim sizes. I was hoping that there would be a speed difference in a given revs and gear with bigger wheels; nothing I've tested has shown any difference. Therefore it looks like the larger rims must come with a correspondingly lower profile tyre, to make tyre circumference the same as with the stock rims. From what I've seen of GT, I doubt this is modelled in terms of tyre behaviour.

 

[BlueShift]

As for camber, I have tested a bunch. Zero is currently the most grip.

When did you make your test ?

Last nigth (eu), I played with the LFA and changing her camber from 0.8/0.9 to 1.8/1.1 did not made her loosing grip, this was quite the opposite...

btw my lsd is 8/23/47 (fully hp'ed / tuned, sorry, couldn't resist). i posted the tune yesterday nigth.

 

[Blood*Specter]

Thank you all for your input. I hope when/if PD reverses the physics, they don't hose something else.👍

I did find my NSX was faster w/o flat floor and plus size rims. Running around Bathurst, I find playing with spring rate, bound/rebound ride height and sway bars is the only way to go. The back side of that track is a suspension challenge to say the least. The first two turns after the back straight aint no bargain either. Easy to lose your shorts if you suspension is off.

Thank you all again.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I am reading back through my notes from tuning Muscle Cars this weekend. This is my favorite thing from my notes. "Frustrated. Threw the kitchen sink at it. Car went much faster. I learned nothing."

Tonight I was updating my Mustang Boss 302 tune. I built this one before I knew about the camber glitch. The car is beginning to feel like muscle cars in GT5. PD just does not believe that a muscle car can be made to turn with the right suspension settings under it. I went to the extremes on settings and I cannot get the car to lose the tail. I could force inside or outside wheel spin with the LSD, but that won't be fast. It is just sad that cranking settings that far toward oversteer only made the car marginally better. Not sure what to think. The Mustang 5.0 from GT5 was the same way. The push just could not be entirely tuned out of the car.

Thoughts?

 

[DigitalBaka]

I am reading back through my notes from tuning Muscle Cars this weekend. This is my favorite thing from my notes. "Frustrated. Threw the kitchen sink at it. Car went much faster. I learned nothing."

Sounds like my experience. My wheel is going to break soon from my forehead hitting it so often.

I have not been able to figure out the suspension to save my life. I feel almost no difference going from extreme to extreme. My understanding in GT5 was fuzzy at best and I just cannot wrap my head around any of this new stuff yet.

What I need is a 🤬 quantifiable, repeatable test run scenario. I don't have the patience to pause replays and record times. It's almost a whole mini-game I want PD to program for me: skidpad, 1/4, 1/2, 1 miles run, top speed, rough course, incline, etc. Maybe once they give us the suspension rig.....

Just caught up on several pages. Had some commentary for the interface thing but that seems over so I'll keep it under my hat until it comes up again.

 

[donpost]

What I need is a 🤬 quantifiable, repeatable test run scenario. I don't have the patience to pause replays and record times. It's almost a whole mini-game I want PD to program for me: skidpad, 1/4, 1/2, 1 miles run, top speed, rough course, incline, etc. Maybe once they give us the suspension rig.....

I was back on Forza this weekend and in case you're not familiar with that game there is a Benchmark Test track that has a skidpan (with no marked circles unfortunately) and a massive oval to test gearing and top speed etc. Oh what I wouldn't give for something like that in GT.

I wonder what the suspension rig will mean in GT - hopefully it means suspension telemetry but looking here: http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/products/gt6/ all it mentions is:

Data Logger

This feature allows you to analyse your saved replay data to show Speed, Engine RPM, Throttle Input, Gear Position, Steering Angle, etc. in a graphical format. This feature will be added in a future update.

 

[DigitalBaka]

The data logger was in GT5. You could load a replay into it and it would show you a line graph of.....well, all that stuff at any given moment. I did not find much value in it (save for seeing if someone hit a wall on a WRS replay) as the graphs didn't have quantities (from what I remember) just like the HP/torque graphs in the setting sheets.

 

[Motor City Hami]

The data logger was in GT5. You could load a replay into it and it would show you a line graph of.....well, all that stuff at any given moment. I did not find much value in it (save for seeing if someone hit a wall on a WRS replay) as the graphs didn't have quantities (from what I remember) just like the HP/torque graphs in the setting sheets.

I agree. It was not very useful for tuning. Its real value would have been to compare one of my laps against someone who is faster. You could compare braking points, throttle points, steering inputs, gear, etc.

 

[xande1959]

HIGH RIDE HEIGHT = LARGE SUSPENSION TRAVEL = SOFT SPRINGS allowing the suspension to work across all the suspension travel without reaching the compression limit.

-PRAIANO63 FRIEND FOR INCREDIBLE THAT IS I'M USING THIS FORM FOR SOME CARS STREET AND RACE.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I am reading back through my notes from tuning Muscle Cars this weekend. This is my favorite thing from my notes. "Frustrated. Threw the kitchen sink at it. Car went much faster. I learned nothing."

Tonight I was updating my Mustang Boss 302 tune. I built this one before I knew about the camber glitch. The car is beginning to feel like muscle cars in GT5. PD just does not believe that a muscle car can be made to turn with the right suspension settings under it. I went to the extremes on settings and I cannot get the car to lose the tail. I could force inside or outside wheel spin with the LSD, but that won't be fast. It is just sad that cranking settings that far toward oversteer only made the car marginally better. Not sure what to think. The Mustang 5.0 from GT5 was the same way. The push just could not be entirely tuned out of the car.

Thoughts?

Sounds like my experience. My wheel is going to break soon from my forehead hitting it so often.

I have not been able to figure out the suspension to save my life. I feel almost no difference going from extreme to extreme. My understanding in GT5 was fuzzy at best and I just cannot wrap my head around any of this new stuff yet.

What I need is a 🤬 quantifiable, repeatable test run scenario. I don't have the patience to pause replays and record times. It's almost a whole mini-game I want PD to program for me: skidpad, 1/4, 1/2, 1 miles run, top speed, rough course, incline, etc. Maybe once they give us the suspension rig.....

Just caught up on several pages. Had some commentary for the interface thing but that seems over so I'll keep it under my hat until it comes up again.

I don't find GT6 tuning much different from GT5. The two biggest things that help make cars better for me, outside of the standard stuff like choosing the right power upgrades, tuning the tranny, adding all the non-PP upgrades etc. that you do on every car, is ballast and LSD. I might be missing something, but for the majority of cars, all the other tuning tools are almost useless, good for a little fine tuning, but not much affect on lap times. I expected something different this time around, more refined, but it's pretty obvious from a tuning and whole game standpoint, that this game is designed for the masses to be dead simple.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I don't find GT6 tuning much different from GT5. The two biggest things that help make cars better for me, outside of the standard stuff like choosing the right power upgrades, tuning the tranny, adding all the non-PP upgrades etc. that you do on every car, is ballast and LSD. I might be missing something, but for the majority of cars, all the other tuning tools are almost useless, good for a little fine tuning, but not much affect on lap times. I expected something different this time around, more refined, but it's pretty obvious from a tuning and whole game standpoint, that this game is designed for the masses to be dead simple.

Agree.

I am still holding out hope that PD will launch the seven post rig and some new spring/damping modeling.

 

[donpost]

Agree.

I am still holding out hope that PD will launch the seven post rig and some new spring/damping modeling.

I agree with all of that - but what about springs/anti-roll bar tuning for balance? Is it easier/better to just use ballast adjustments for that in GT?

 

[Motor City Hami]

I agree with all of that - but what about springs/anti-roll bar tuning for balance? Is it easier/better to just use ballast adjustments for that in GT?

Springs and ARBs seem to be working as well as ballast for me.

 

[Gunma36]

Guys, is there anyone who can tell, for once and for all, which way you stiffen suspension? To the left or to the right? I mean, lower numbers mean hard or soft suspension (in term of Kg/m)

 

[jtqmopar]

Guys, is there anyone who can tell, for once and for all, which way you stiffen suspension? To the left or to the right? I mean, lower numbers mean hard or soft suspension (in term of Kg/m)

The higher the number, the more weight it will require to compress the spring 1mm.

Bigger numbers = stiffer, this should never have been an issue, unless it was programmed wrong, and that's something that (hopefully) would have been noticed

 

[Gunma36]

The higher the number, the more weight it will require to compress the spring 1mm.

Bigger numbers = stiffer, this should never have been an issue, unless it was programmed wrong, and that's something that (hopefully) would have been noticed

So when I install full custom susp. and I see f.i. 4.53 Kg/m that means that a certain car has soft stock values, right?

Besides, what I'd like to understand is how to setup toe values.

 

[raernst]

I think that we can all agree that lower ride height = lower centre of gravity with the associated benefits, at the cost of reduced "wiggle room" in the suspension before you hit the stops or scrape the body on the road, right?

Thing is you just can't tell with any certainty when you are hitting the stops. If you have it way too low you can notice a loss in grip, but otherwise its hard to tell. We need suspension telemetry like in Forza! I'm hoping they are going to add something like that in an update...

Ive noticed that if I set the RH too low, that on parts of the track (I like to use "Deep Forest" for tuning) that are demanding with respect to suspension travel, that I can feel (force feedback through my Logitech G-25) what feels like the suspension bottoming out/hitting the stops. I then increase the RH one click at a time, test again. I then go back and tweek the SR (again, very small adjustments). Ive been happy so far with the results (lower and consistent lap times).

 

[Motor City Hami]

I made a big update to my tuning guide this weekend. More updates to come in the problem solving section.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/motor-city-tunes-gt6.291066/#post-9003797

 

[Motor City Hami]

Anyone tested camber yet in 1.04? Is it just speculation that PD fixed it? Hopeful thinking? Or has someone done some back to back testing. I plan to take my FITT Muscle Car entries and run back to back with only camber changes. That way I know that I am starting with fully optimized tunes and changing only one variable. Will probably change only one end of the car at a time. That should provide a valid test.

 

[ace004]

Anyone tested camber yet in 1.04? Is it just speculation that PD fixed it? Hopeful thinking? Or has someone done some back to back testing. I plan to take my FITT Muscle Car entries and run back to back with only camber changes. That way I know that I am starting with fully optimized tunes and changing only one variable. Will probably change only one end of the car at a time. That should provide a valid test.

I will test tonight and report my findings. Wouldn't adding camber evenly be a better test than only at one side. Going from zero shouldn't adding 1-2 degrees evenly make your car faster no matter what if the model is corrected? I would think it should be easy to find once you benchmark the car.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I will test tonight and report my findings. Wouldn't adding camber evenly be a better test than only at one side. Going from zero shouldn't adding 1-2 degrees evenly make your car faster no matter what if the model is corrected? I would think it should be easy to find once you benchmark the car.

That would be a good test too. I was just thinking that it would be easy to notice the balance of the car change if I tried these:

0/0
1/0
2/0
3/0
0/1
0/2
0/3

 

[esoxhntr]

hopeful thinking i'm afraid. a value other than 0 still takes away grip from that end. i only tested one car and quit in disgust however, so YMMV

 

[Motor City Hami]

hopeful thinking i'm afraid. a value other than 0 still takes away grip from that end. i only tested one car and quit in disgust however, so YMMV

I would still like to test. It will just add more evidence either way.

I linked the other camber thread in post #3 of this one so that we can find it later somewhere within the tuning forum. https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...ions-tuning-garage-links.291068/#post-9004008

 

[ace004]

That would be a good test too. I was just thinking that it would be easy to notice the balance of the car change if I tried these:

0/0
1/0
2/0
3/0
0/1
0/2
0/3

Nevermind carry on. I got ahead of myself. The way you state should figure it out just fine. If camber is fixed then adding camber to the rear only should help reduce oversteer not induce it like it has been.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Nevermind carry on. I got ahead of myself. The way you state should figure it out just fine. If camber is fixed then adding camber to the rear only should help reduce oversteer not induce it like it has been.

It is ok. I am just very methodical with tuning. It takes me a while to sort a car in the real world, too, but once sorted... unbeatable.

 

[XDesperado67]

Uhm just random thought on my part but is camber really messed up/wrong?

If a car is sitting flat on a level surface then 0 camber produces the largest contact patch. As long as you have no tire flex or the suspension doesn't deform under cornering load changing relative wheel angle then 0 camber would still create the largest contact patch unless the road surface itself was angled and not flat.

If testing of camber is conducted on a relatively flat surface then the fact that adding camber to the wheels reduces grip seems to indicate to me that tire flex/suspension wheel angle changes under lateral G load are what's not being modeled correctly.
Again just my random thought of the day...

 

[esoxhntr]

that's entirely possible XD.

one thing i've noticed in 1.04, completely off the camber thread, is that cold tires are 'colder' than they were in 1.03. ie. they have less grip until they warm up.

definately helpful in any kind of testing that doesn't involve prolonging tire life and focuses on the fastest car, is to run with tire wear off (i only tune online, so I don't know if this applies to offline) where tires appear to be 'warmed up' from the getgo.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Uhm just random thought on my part but is camber really messed up/wrong?

If a car is sitting flat on a level surface then 0 camber produces the largest contact patch. As long as you have no tire flex or the suspension doesn't deform under cornering load changing relative wheel angle then 0 camber would still create the largest contact patch unless the road surface itself was angled and not flat.

If testing of camber is conducted on a relatively flat surface then the fact that adding camber to the wheels reduces grip seems to indicate to me that tire flex/suspension wheel angle changes under lateral G load are what's not being modeled correctly.
Again just my random thought of the day...

I raced remote controlled cars on carpet with foam tires. The foam is pretty firm and does not flex like rubber tire - like zero tire wall flex. Camber was still a huge part of tuning. If you ran 1 degree or less, the front tires would become unglued from the rims. Plus, I do not know of many cars with zero caster. Only tractors in Oregon run zero caster.