Unrealistic Tuning Options

[montez34]

This is my first thread, I haven't seen anything in the forums about this before. I think gt6 should feature more realistic tuning options as far as parts and upgrades being more vehicle specific. One that has always annoyed me is putting an ecu tune on a vehicle that has no computer, that would be most cars pre 1980 and turbos and superchargers should be available for all cars. American cars before the mid 1970s also didn't have catalytic convertors but you gain power by installing a high flow cat on a car that originally didn't have one at all. I'm just looking for more suggestions for tuning options that should be added or removed, please comment.

 

[RoadRocket77]

I agree, Tuning options and parts that fit the vehicle.

 

[Rotorist]

Very nice thread my friend.

 

[DCP]

I agree with that as well, nice post.
SOme of these cars perform slightly better with just adding a chip and racing exhaust, then gain more torque with a Cat converter. Weird and unusual to say the least. It should be fixed.

 

[bs13]

Or you could leave it alone and let the user decide how he or she wants to play the game . The more options a game has the more it appeals to a wider audience.

 

[GTMail]

I agree with you. Also the cars that never originally came with ABS (basically every pre-1980's cars) should not have it in the game. Unless if you want to purchase new brakes with ABS on them. But that's another topic.

 

[montez34]

I see abs as more of a driving aid, it's too hard to drive without it, there's no feel like in a real car.

 

[montez34]

Or you could leave it alone and let the user decide how he or she wants to play the game . The more options a game has the more it appeals to a wider audience.

It's called the real driving simulator, in real life you wouldn't put a performance computer on a 69 camaro because it has no computer to begin with.

 

[montez34]

I would also like to see some of the old tuning options brought back, like increase displacement and nitrous.

 

[jimipitbull]

It's called the real driving simulator, in real life you wouldn't put a performance computer on a 69 camaro because it has no computer to begin with.

What if you added fuel injection to the 69 camaro as part of an engine performance upgrade. Would it then have a computer?

 

[montez34]

What if you added fuel injection to the 69 camaro as part of an engine performance upgrade. Would it then have a computer?

Yes but that would be included with buying fuel injection.

 

[BWX]

While I agree, GT5 needs SO MUCH work in other areas, I find this ''problem'' trivial.
You can add an ECU to any car, but I just leave it off of cars without EFI. If I put them on, I think, hey, I just added a sensor and an ECU and EFI-- no big deal really.

 

[analog]

I think simply adding a carburator icon additional to the ECU icon (selectable/unselectable when approppriate) would largely 'solve' the feeling of inaccuracy, whether it would actually make a difference regarding performance (which it obviously should) is another matter.

 

[eight6er]

You can add injection to any car, so I don't have a problem with adding an ECU to any car. If it's a carbureted car, I just think they put an injection system on too.

 

[jimipitbull]

There are also computer controlled carburetors, but lets not let a lack of research get in the way of a good whinge thread

 

[BWX]

There's also mechanical fuel injection. What's your point?

 

[mr_brookenstein]

on cars with carb, I look at the ECU upgrade as a re-jet and tune up of said carbs, the performance gains are close to performance gains in life, the cat option however, bugs the hell out me.

 

[Griffith500]

on cars with carb, I look at the ECU upgrade as a re-jet and tune up of said carbs, the performance gains are close to performance gains in life, the cat option however, bugs the hell out me.

Except that carburettor tuning is far more constrained than modern ECU tuning for fueling alone; what you gain in one are you will lose elsewhere - multi-dimensional fueling maps don't have that limitation, certainly not to anywhere near the same degree. In reality the modern ECU controls more than just fueling - namely ignition and cam timing, too, as well as boost where applicable.
A lot of old engines use mechanical distributors that can be a weak spot when it comes to "tuning", for example; should that be added as well? If so, how? It starts to get very complicated, which I don't mind at all, but how do you keep it sane for those that do mind?

Another thing, though, even with modern cars (or especially so, perhaps) is that fitting high-flow cats and a low-restriction air filter is just as likely to cause the engine to perform worse as it is to make it perform better. As such, exhaust upgrades etc. shouldn't "work" until the ECU is re-mapped to suit. So what, exactly, is the ECU upgrade actually for in the game, when it is technically included in every other upgrade?

That aside, I see the ECU upgrade as more than just a re-map, but a sort of "conversion" into the modern regime, perhaps even more than that still: a bespoke tuning ECU, with all the extra control that offers.

 

[smskeeter23]

I agree with Griffith on this one. The "computer upgrade" can mean SO MANY things for an older car and new alike.

Old car could mean adding an MSD ignition box, adding fuel injection, or any other host of electronics.

A "high flow cat" could be seen as an h-pipe install or some sort of header scavenging collector and such.

An intake upgrade could include a new Carb (and really should) or injection added.

You get the point. If they added more options it could make things a total mess. If they do anything the best route would probably be to simply rename some of the upgrades for certain vehicles.

 

[avens]

And upgrades that in the real world simply don't work or are way less beneficial than what GT5 says.

 

[Tornado]

Or you could leave it alone and let the user decide how he or she wants to play the game . The more options a game has the more it appeals to a wider audience.

Simply leaving it alone isn't an option when the way it is set up now is highly unrealistic (most of the tuning parts in the game still act as a power multiplier rather than what the tuning parts would do in real life) and arbitrarily limited.

The way it is now, there is no drawbacks to any tuning upgrades. Turbos don't have any lag. High-stress engine tuning causes no driveability problems. Exhaust parts increase power across the rev range. GT1 and GT2 had a much better system, and while it is understandable why they moved away from it (each part on each car was done by hand so that had to be labor intensive as hell), the system as it is now that dates to GT3 is becoming increasingly anachronistic and was never realistic in the first place.

There are also computer controlled carburetors, but lets not let a lack of research get in the way of a good whinge thread

Heard it here first, folks. PD should carryover tuning options into GT6.

 

[montez34]

There's some good points here, and I do think tuning parts and options were better in the older games. Renaming or adding to the description of what a part does would also be nice, for an ecu tune they could just say for cars with no ecu that it's an upgraded ignition and carb tuning.

 

[montez34]

I think the prices should also be adjusted based on the purchase price of the vehicle, making cheap cars cheaper to upgrade. I have a lot of sub $20,000 cars with $200,000+ in parts on them. It seems to me it would be simple to implement, for example just set the prices for parts based on a $50,000 car, then add or subtract 5% for every $5,000 above or below in car value. The engine rebuilds vary widely from car to car already and I believe it's based on how complicated or rare the engine is, so there is already a form of car based tuning pricing in the game, that could also be carried over to the tuning parts.

 

[montez34]

There are also computer controlled carburetors, but lets not let a lack of research get in the way of a good whinge thread

This a discussion not whining, and maybe you should do some research, GMs' first computer controlled carburetor came out in 1980, it was the 3rd generation of quadrajet, so as I said in my first post MOST cars pre 1980 were not computer controlled, there could be a few exemtions, but 1980 is when computers were first widely used in cars.

 

[Exorcet]

One nice improvement that I'm doubtful will occur is changing the aero settings from a generic wing with that meaningless downforce number to a set of wings. Especially for race cars, as they change parts when they go to different tracks. These parts are all adjustable, but one wing is not flexible enough to handle to handle all circuits and the adjustability built into them is more for fine tuning.

GT6 will probably have just one wing per car with adjustable configuration. I'd be OK with that, but they have to give us real numbers when setting up the car. The downforce page needs to report lift, drag, and car balance.

 

[smskeeter23]

The downforce page needs to report lift, drag, and car balance.

My guess is that the "downforce/drag" code just plain isn't complex enough to handle all that right now. It's likely just a variable "grip" multiplier.

Something like aero+/-x = grip*x

 

[Exorcet]

My guess is that the "downforce/drag" code just plain isn't complex enough to handle all that right now. It's likely just a variable "grip" multiplier.

Something like aero+/-x = grip*x

It doesn't actually take much coding to get a decent low level aero model.

User input wing angle = a

m = lift slope

lift = a*m

skin drag = cd_skin*wing_area

induced drag = [some constants and V^2]*lift^2

drag = skin drag + induced drag

grip = (weight+lift/weight)^(tire_grip_Factor)

Replace that with actual functions and you'd have an OK model. PD would just need to come up with estimates for lift slopes and cd_skin.

 

[smskeeter23]

It doesn't actually take much coding to get a decent low level aero model.

Oh I understand that I'm just saying if I had to guess I wouldn't think the existing code is even that advanced.

 

[Grimmeh]

What happened to imagination? Kids these days are boring.

 

[Ronald6]

PS3 limitations > imagination.