Update 1.06 possible changes to the physics + general physics discussion.

[t3kc0h]

Higher frame rate can improve the feel and handling of the car, and low frame rate can impair it. I didn't say anything about the visual element. But when I play F1 2013, which is capped at 30fps, it certainly looks/feels different than GT5 or GT6. 👍

Well I assumed it was visual so that's my bad.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Anything over 30FPS isn't noticeable to the human eye so....

But I have noticed the front end of my car doesn't like to grip as much. I don't know if anyone else feels this, but I feel it in the wheel.

Ya think so? Watch just about any movie ever made and take note of the picture when the camera is panning. Then watch The Hobbit, shot in 48 fps, double the usual rate and tell me it isn't the same as night and day. You can't actually see the fps that's technically correct, but you really notice the difference when there is movement on the screen. Same with TV's that are 60 vs. 120 vs. 240 vs. 600Hz. World of difference.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I will wait with impatience. Mine has more than 7000km now, about 50 changes (also used your initial tune), still hard to drive really fast, but still my favourite car.
I should mention I drive it almost exclusively in the Nürburg 24' race.
I even bought a second one now, which I left stock and this time I will not stiffen the chassis. I feel that could have been a serious mistake...

Did not really feel a difference after 1.06...

The physics is the same, but the way the suspension and chassis of the car react to changes are more pronounced. I spent good deal of time messing around back in 1.04 with the R8 LMS, changing dampers, spring, ARB to help it easier to push harder. It wasn't really responsive to changes, but 1.05 improved a bit, which I felt through when building many 450PP FF cars and FF replicas at Tsukuba ( my test ground ). 2 step down or up on rear damper extension gives great impact on these FF cars on comfort soft. My 458 GT3 and Camaro GT3 also greatly benefits from this when I tuned them, in that one or 2 click damper changes could give me feedback that I know which is better for me in a few corners or one lap

Then in 1.06, I went back to R8 LMS Ultra, bring it Tsukuba, the old 1.05 tune was still the same like it was in 1.04. Then I started from the ground up, make changes, even with one less or more front damper extension than compression, I can already sense the changes on track when entering the 1st corner.

At Tsukuba it initially manages 53s lap on RH tire, 528HP, no oil, no body rigidity, 599PP, stock gearing, only change the suspension, LSD and aero. Then after fine tuning damper and ARB, it dropped down to mid to high 52s consistently. Which I think just as quick if not quicker than SuperGT / GT500 cars and other GT3 cars.

I brought the car to Silverstone GP, there it posted 2:01s in 1st lap, then Brands Hatch GP, 1:23.3xxs in 1st lap that could have been 1:22s, then I say, mmm, this is better than the older tune. Then I test it at Bathurst, 2:04s on 1st lap, that could have been 2:03s if I didn't back off or brake too early on some corners I also learned that the aero downforce values in GT6 GT3 cars are much higher than the real life cars. Even with low aero setup, the R8 LMS can still corners at very high speed, thus giving such quick lap times.

On my research, one of the GT3 cars manufacturer, SaReNi United / Reiter Engineering, stated that the Camaro GT3 at 200km/h produces 40kg front and 250kg rear downforce. Not really big for race car

I will try it at Nurb 24H.

Regarding body rigidity, with proper tuning on suspension, it should be beneficial to the car, if you drive some of my latest GT3 replicas based from road car, they all have mandatory body rigidity as they are going to be fitted with racing tires. The rigidity gives the 458 and Camaro SS the feel of a race car stiffness when cornering, giving extra stability that's important when driven on racing tires. The 458 was capable of 53.1s at Tsukuba and should be able competitive against GT3 cars.

 

[t3kc0h]

Ya think so? Watch just about any movie ever made and take note of the picture when the camera is panning. Then watch The Hobbit, shot in 48 fps, double the usual rate and tell me it isn't the same as night and day. You can't actually see the fps that's technically correct, but you really notice the difference when there is movement on the screen. Same with TV's that are 60 vs. 120 vs. 240 vs. 600Hz. World of difference.

But that is completely dependent on the TV's refresh rate... not on the movie's.

 

[Johnnypenso]

But that is completely dependent on the TV's refresh rate... not on the movie's.

Same principle

 

[Fanapryde]

I will try it at Nurb 24H.

thanks, that would be great. Forgot to mention that I always use RH, even when wet.

 

[Newland]

Tire compounds seem to have been tweaked, actually liking the new feel. That's the only difference my group and I have noticed.

 

[t3kc0h]

Same principle

But that's not what changed in 1.06 so let's get back on topic.

 

[nasanu]

The actual free-body simulation is poor, and always has been.

Not sure how you can say this. There is a major problem with cars far too easily getting onto two wheels but once the car is in that state or upside down/in the air GT6 is very good. Unlike PC sims where cars act as if they are in a vacuum (which tells you they don't even model wind *stares in the direction of Assetto Corsa*) cars in GT6 behave exactly as they should considering they don't dissipate energy through distortion of their bodies.

My theory is that there is some kind of error in the areo model. Its like wind gets caught beneath the car providing lift. Its why the car would act realistically when it is on its roof or rolling yet floaty when on two wheels. If gravity were to blame then it would always be floaty especially when barrel rolling.

Oh and to put this gravity thing to rest, don't you guys realize that a change to gravity would change the lap times significantly? Gravity effects everything, acceleration, braking, general tyre grip, car to car contact... Its too huge.

Anything over 30FPS isn't noticeable to the human eye so....

Complete myth. 30fps is around the frame rate need to trick the eye into seeing movement. It is not some upper limit. Personally I see some florescent lights flicker and they refresh far beyond 30fps.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

thanks, that would be great. Forgot to mention that I always use RH, even when wet.

I have driven the R8 at Nurb 24H, better than my old tune which I also tried. Also tried in the wet, RH, 40% water on track, 75% weather, it's drivable, a bit slippery on the 1st 3 gears but at least the car is stable on foxhole.

It will be posted as Blancpain replica

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh and to put this gravity thing to rest, don't you guys realize that a change to gravity would change the lap times significantly? Gravity effects everything, acceleration, braking, general tyre grip, car to car contact... Its too huge.

I don't know anything about game programming, but isn't it possible that "gravity" only comes into effect when the car is not in contact with the ground, and when the tires are in contact with the ground a different portion of the physics model come into play? Sort of like aero only working at speed and not at rest.

If this were true, then the effects of "gravity" would only show up when the car was airborne for sustained periods and would have no effect on grip etc.

 

[nasanu]

I don't know anything about game programming, but isn't it possible that "gravity" only comes into effect when the car is not in contact with the ground, and when the tires are in contact with the ground a different portion of the physics model come into play? Sort of like aero only working at speed and not at rest.

If this were true, then the effects of "gravity" would only show up when the car was airborne for sustained periods and would have no effect on grip etc.

If gravity were only running when the car was airborne then how would the physics engine know when to make the car airborne? How would it know how much suspension compression was taking place? How would it know how much pressure is on each wheel?.. Gravity has to be locked into everything.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

The fact that PD made the moonbuggy because they were so happy with their gravity model, pretty much rules out changes in gravity IMHO.
What could have been done - and also affects how suspension, chassis and tyres behave - is a change in how air flows around (mainly under in this case) the cars. Another possibility is centrifugal forces, something that has always been poorly modeled.

 

[nasanu]

Another possibility is centrifugal forces, something that has always been poorly modeled.

Can't really see that there are centrifugal forces that act on a car...? Of course the wheels experience such forces, but not in way which would effect handling.

 

[NixxxoN]

Online or offline? It could be possible that the changes are only felt online. I do a lot of driving but never do any driving offline so I wouldn't know how it felt before or after 1.06. But I know what I feel now is different.

Im talking about online.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Can't really see that there are centrifugal forces that act on a car...? Of course the wheels experience such forces, but not in way which would effect handling.

Drive on a banked turn, and you'll see what I mean.
But centrifugal forces act on a car whenever it turns.

 

[Sydbom]

Ya think so? Watch just about any movie ever made and take note of the picture when the camera is panning. Then watch The Hobbit, shot in 48 fps, double the usual rate and tell me it isn't the same as night and day. You can't actually see the fps that's technically correct, but you really notice the difference when there is movement on the screen. Same with TV's that are 60 vs. 120 vs. 240 vs. 600Hz. World of difference.

There is no such thing as a 600hz tv.
That is just the speed a plasma tv blinks, it takes 10 blinks to create one frame.
There are no plasma tvs with a higher framerate then 120hz. It doesnt need to!
And that is just make the picture look more stable, its not needed for any kind of motion.

On an lcd raising the framerate doesnt have any real benefits either, other than marketing. Since the lcd is not blinking to create frames it can show a stable 50/60hz picture and dont need to double it.
And raising it two or four times (120/240) doesnt make its handling of motion better either since the bad guy here is not how fast you can throw up a new frame but the "afterglow"!
It takes to long for the pixel to get rid of the last frame!
They sort of mixes together, and even if your tv says its very fast, like 2ms, thats only the fastest level of grey that is that fast, they dont tell you how slow the slowest level of grey in the panel is!
And THAT is what you wanna know, and what keeps lcds from being good at motionblur.

And for your information, any number higer than 240hz is just marketing ********!
Its got NOTHING to do with framerate!

800hz lcds is just the speed of the internal computing.

2500-3000hz plasmas is just internal computing as well.

480hz lcd is just 2 different things the lcd is doing in 240hz that they thought they could add together, and tadaa you have suddenly double the framerate to 480...



But you are talking about frame interpolation, creating new frames based one the one before and after.

 

[t3kc0h]

Complete myth. 30fps is around the frame rate need to trick the eye into seeing movement. It is not some upper limit. Personally I see some florescent lights flicker and they refresh far beyond 30fps.

I see air moving around the vehicle while I'm driving irl. xD But I'm being serious, some people's eyes are better than others, and some brains process faster, but tell me you see a Difference in 30 FPS to 60 FPS. (Max you can get with a standard LCD tv. NOT computer monitors.)

 

[nasanu]

Drive on a banked turn, and you'll see what I mean.
But centrifugal forces act on a car whenever it turns.

Are you sure?.. You are thinking of centripetal force, but its basically the same thing, just a matter of the frame of reference.

I see air moving around the vehicle while I'm driving irl. xD But I'm being serious, some people's eyes are better than others, and some brains process faster, but tell me you see a Difference in 30 FPS to 60 FPS. (Max you can get with a standard LCD tv. NOT computer monitors.)

I do, though it really depends on the game and the display. Read up about 'flicker fusion rate', that is how our eyes frame rate is measured.

 

[Samus]

I see air moving around the vehicle while I'm driving irl. xD But I'm being serious, some people's eyes are better than others, and some brains process faster, but tell me you see a Difference in 30 FPS to 60 FPS. (Max you can get with a standard LCD tv. NOT computer monitors.)

Most people can, very easily.

 

[t3kc0h]

Most people can, very easily.

Visually see air moving molecule by molecule around their windshield?

 

[Samus]

Visually see air moving molecule by molecule around their windshield?

What?

http://30vs60fps.com/

For most people it's easier to tell watching rather than playing but most people can see the difference.

 

[BrandonW77]

Visually see air moving molecule by molecule around their windshield?

Only Dale Earnhardt could see that. LOVE YOU DAAAAAALE!!!

 

[OdeFinn]

@LVracerGT, @GTPorsche, @eSZee, no problemo, I have 1.05 on fatty and 1.06 on slim, when back home I'll do some replays.

Some days I hate my self, already updated that fatty. Checkin Sunday if possible to revert back to 1.05 by cancelling middle of update download/install.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If gravity were only running when the car was airborne then how would the physics engine know when to make the car airborne? How would it know how much suspension compression was taking place? How would it know how much pressure is on each wheel?.. Gravity has to be locked into everything.

Gravity when a car in GT6 is airborne does not operate like gravity does in real life and you can see this over the larger jumps like at Cape Ring and the huge jumps you used to get in the track creator. In real life, cars without wings at the back providing downforce and going over those long jumps, would probably end up t-boning into the ground but they don't, they land perfectly and just keep going. I've jumped cars for several hundred feet and landed them successfully on all four wheels. For this to happen when a car is airborne, "gravity" on the front of the car must be less than the gravity on the back of the car in GT5/6. If this were the case, every car in GT5/6 would understeer would it not, if the effect were large enough?

 

[Samus]

There is definitely another force at work in GT6 keeping cars mostly level during jumps. Probably the same one that allows cars to wheelie without a bar.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

This is on 1.06, when I tested my R8 LMS Ultra :

View attachment 140098​

View attachment 140100​

I didn't crashed, landed safely and keep on going

 

[amar212]

Well, speaking of physics, I spontaneously did something strange yesterday.

I was driving Tamya seasonal (Eiger Nordwand) and after I quit the game I saw the GT:HD (2007 PSN release) at the very end of my XMB Games list.

I fired it up just from curiosity and took an Integra Type-R for a spin.

I strongly recommend it to anyone who still have it installed. First question: why on Earth PD changed the way gearboxes work? In GT:HD the gearbox are phenomenal, they actual gear-changes are slower, more realistic and more "analogue". Why we lost that? I was not happy once I realized how much the gearbox system in GT5/GT6 is close to GT4's "digital" one.

Then I moved to GT4: Prologue for reasons of testing my favorite physics-detail in all GT games, and that is aerodynamic's stall in high speeds. And yes, it was still there and it is phenomenal.

We should get all of that back.

 

[Griffith500]

Not sure how you can say this. There is a major problem with cars far too easily getting onto two wheels but once the car is in that state or upside down/in the air GT6 is very good. Unlike PC sims where cars act as if they are in a vacuum (which tells you they don't even model wind *stares in the direction of Assetto Corsa*) cars in GT6 behave exactly as they should considering they don't dissipate energy through distortion of their bodies.

My theory is that there is some kind of error in the areo model. Its like wind gets caught beneath the car providing lift. Its why the car would act realistically when it is on its roof or rolling yet floaty when on two wheels. If gravity were to blame then it would always be floaty especially when barrel rolling.

Oh and to put this gravity thing to rest, don't you guys realize that a change to gravity would change the lap times significantly? Gravity effects everything, acceleration, braking, general tyre grip, car to car contact... Its too huge.

I'm not arguing that the gravity has been changed, but it is plain that the cars do weird things the moment one or more tyres is off the ground. Be that flipping over forwards under brakes, or rolling unnecessarily, or just sliding around on their roof with no influence from the impacts that roof is having with the ground, rotating only under the momentum it had when the wheels left the ground

Well, there is a collision model, but it behaves like a uniformly dense object, not as though there are lumps of mass concentrated in certain locations - that only works through the wheels. The aero model also only works through the wheels. Cars do not gradually take off under exponential lift once they leave the ground, they do not arrest in the free flow of the open air and they do not align themselves with that free-flow.

The aero model hacked into GPL (for the '69, then '66 mods) does all of those things which, combined with the class-leading free-body simulation under-pinning it, looks impressive in action. That same engine, with an "official" aero model, faithfully recreates blow-overs in NR2003.

Complete myth. 30fps is around the frame rate need to trick the eye into seeing movement. It is not some upper limit. Personally I see some florescent lights flicker and they refresh far beyond 30fps.

I see fluorescent flicker, too, and they're driven at second harmonic minimum: 100 Hz. That's purely to prevent the unpleasant effects of flicker perception, and even then it's still detrimental to concentration / alertness / not feeling sick in many people (which is partly why restaurants etc. don't use them anymore, preferring halogen instead).

Cinema screens are 24 frames per second, but they are exposed twice at minimum, sometimes three or more: minimum 48 Hz - that probably has something to do with the framerate chosen for The Hobbit.

Film is exposed for a fraction of the length of the actual frame time, to reduce the motion blur of the frame traveling across the light source. Doing that increases the perception of flicker, so the same frame is exposed multiple times to reduce that sensation. It's only a perceptual trick. They did the same with the new Rift prototype, where the "low-persistence" display means there is less perception of frames blurring into each other as you move your head. Eventually we'll have the horsepower to actually put the frames there and "low-persistence" will just be a natural consequence of "high-frame-rate".

More: Persistence of vision.

 

[eclipsee]

Can't really see that there are centrifugal forces that act on a car...? Of course the wheels experience such forces, but not in way which would effect handling.

If there wouldn't be centrifugal forces that act on a car we could take any turn at max speed.