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

[Maccer_42]

Here's an article where Travis Pastrana, who jumps cars, bikes, monster trucks and everything in between states that you can control a vehicles trajectory with throttle and brake and steering input mid air.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/vintage-speed/how-to-jump-a-stunt-car-like-travis-pastrana

After avoiding excessive upward or downward pitch as you exit the takeoff ramp, the next task at hand is midair car control. No, that is not an oxymoron. Strategic throttle or brake application during flight can affect the orientation of the car, because of the gyroscopic effects of the wheels. "You can probably control the car up to 90 degrees either way," Pastrana explains. "If you're flying normal, you can get the car up to 45 degrees up or 45 degrees down." Of course, the initial attitude depends on the car's weight distribution. Mitsubishi EVOs, for instance, tend to be nose-heavy at takeoff, whereas Subaru WRX STis have a tendency to "fly more level," according to Pastrana.

If he say's it can be done I believe him.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Here's an article where Travis Pastrana, who jumps cars, bikes, monster trucks and everything in between states that you can control a vehicles trajectory with throttle and brake and steering input mid air.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/vintage-speed/how-to-jump-a-stunt-car-like-travis-pastrana

If he say's it can be done I believe him.

Yeah, but does he play GT6? If not then forget about him

Joking of course!!

 

[nasanu]

You'll have to run the numbers for us, I think. Don't forget that the rotary force from the wheels stopping or speeding up is proportional to both the mass of the wheel and its acceleration, and is sustained throughout that acceleration. Then you'll need to show us just how much force is required to rotate a car in mid air at the required rate.

I outweigh my bicycle by a factor of 4, the wheels constitute less than a fifth of the bike's weight. So braking the wheels from about 20 mph is enough to rotate a mass 20 times their size relatively quickly enough to turn a looping-out situation into a nose-dive; just as a ball-park starting point. The trick works with heavier riders on lighter bikes, too, implying a mass ratio greater than 20, probably greater than 30, is still useful in such situations. These car jumps we're witnessing last much longer and involve much smaller angles to the horizontal than a typical bicycle jump, so even higher ratios (lower resultant rotation rates) can be considered useful; but there's far more acceleration to play with on the braking aspect because of the higher speed, too, by a factor of at least 2, maybe 3. The mass ratio on an RC car is closer to 4 or 5, not less than 1 as you imply, with tight constraints on flight time and angles, as with a bicycle.
What's the mass ratio for a car?



Never mind that the video Johnnypenso posted, and the one that Dodzzz posted supposedly refuting the idea, both clearly demonstrate "aftertouch". You can even see how the trophy truck has rolled slightly due to having throttled on after having braked to bring the nose down. That engine torque roll effect, as you say, even works when the car is supported by the road and opposed by the suspension, never mind in the open air; plus it can only be proportional to the acceleration felt by the rotational mass of the engine (and that due to any friction), the same goes for any connected drivetrain parts.

The rotational mass of the engine and flywheel is probably comparable to that of a couple of wheels. If the car is in gear, any throttle blips will speed up the wheels as well, and they do rotate in the "correct" plane; that rotation will be opposed by the chassis through the suspension mounts. That means the chassis will rotate in free air and the "opposition" will therefore be a purely inertial force, the result of accelerating the chassis in the direction of wheel rotation. Neglecting air resistance effects.



Now, this after-touch is of limited use in cars, for obvious reasons (no-one really gets that much air...), what's generally more important on rotation rates in mid-air (and helps to avoid the need for after-touch) is controlling the difference in contact patch forces around take-off, which you can influence with brakes or throttle via "weight transfer", but watch out for suspension interactions...

The point, really, is that a full simulation should be able to reproduce these effects via inertial interactions, but that is not how the physics engine appears to be built; that construction has other, more profound effects than simply not being able to rotate a flying car, because it affects any forces being put into or "generated" by the car. Those effects only seem to be accounted for via the contact patches, hence the weird behaviour the moment any of them aren't touching something.

As you said. your body mass is by far the largest mass when on a bike. What is worse is that your body is free from the bike (do you honestly expect me to believe riders don't shift their bodies?). You can not compare this to a car.

You seem to be thinking that I am denying that this effect exists. I am not. What I don't feel is accurate though is the assumption that this can have a dramatic impact on the axis of a car in the time frame of a typical car jump. You can give examples of things that are NOT road cars doing this all you like, it is not relevant. What I want to see are these forces shifting the axis of a 1800kg car in a fraction of a second. Sure the car is in the air, but that is still a hell of a lot of mass to shift by a small amount of mass in a very short time.

Here's an article where Travis Pastrana, who jumps cars, bikes, monster trucks and everything in between states that you can control a vehicles trajectory with throttle and brake and steering input mid air.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/vintage-speed/how-to-jump-a-stunt-car-like-travis-pastrana



If he say's it can be done I believe him.

Yeah, with a high powered light weight car and 50 meters for the effects to work. What people are saying on here is that it should work with a heavy low powered road car and 2 meters. That I don't buy.

 

[Griffith500]

As you said. your body mass is by far the largest mass when on a bike. What is worse is that your body is free from the bike (do you honestly expect me to believe riders don't shift their bodies?). You can not compare this to a car.

You seem to be thinking that I am denying that this effect exists. I am not. What I don't feel is accurate though is the assumption that this can have a dramatic impact on the axis of a car in the time frame of a typical car jump. You can give examples of things that are NOT road cars doing this all you like, it is not relevant. What I want to see are these forces shifting the axis of a 1800kg car in a fraction of a second. Sure the car is in the air, but that is still a hell of a lot of mass to shift by a small amount of mass in a very short time.

My body mass also needs rotating, though. I'm already in the air, what am I supposed to be shifting my weight against? I can't push against thin air and make my centre of gravity rotate the other way! Note that there is no equivalent way to bring the nose up on a bicycle; you nose dive, you're toast - can't use your weight there, either. What you can do is "ball up" so your moment of inertia is smaller, and rotation rates are intrinsically faster for a given energy - but you still have to change that direction.

Nice that you avoided actually looking at the numbers. I'm sure I said that after-touch is of limited use for cars, but you can get large enough jumps in GT6 to test its presence, alright.

Once again: how much force is required to rotate that 1800 kg car in mid-air? Hint: next-to-zero. New question: how fast does it need to rotate (what angle does it need to cover)? How much force is required to achieve that in a given timeframe? What timeframe should you be working to?

A trophy truck weighs near enough two tonnes, by the way.

Yeah, with a high powered light weight car and 50 meters for the effects to work. What people are saying on here is that it should work with a heavy low powered road car and 2 meters. That I don't buy.

No they're not.

Let's not lose sight of what this is about: the issue is that the game does not model the cars' components separately, and with an inertial representation in 3D space. If it did, rollovers etc. wouldn't look half as goofy as they do, and the general behaviour of the physics engine would be more natural.

Also, the cars do partially align themselves to the landing in GT6; they've done it since GT5 Prologue - it's all done before the car has finished taking off, though. It's a bit like the old roll-limit before GT5, where cars would just stop rotating once they reached a certain roll angle. Presumably they did that because the physics are so messed up once the car does roll over. It may actually just be another goofy behaviour due to not having all four contact patches on the ground as the car is in the process of taking off.

This is a legacy issue and may go away in time, but since PD can't really hack much more out of it, they'd really have to start again. That would be a significant investment of time and testing; maybe they're almost done, it's hard to know either way.

 

[nasanu]

My body mass also needs rotating, though. I'm already in the air, what am I supposed to be shifting my weight against? I can't push against thin air and make my centre of gravity rotate the other way! Note that there is no equivalent way to bring the nose up on a bicycle; you nose dive, you're toast - can't use your weight there, either. What you can do is "ball up" so your moment of inertia is smaller, and rotation rates are intrinsically faster for a given energy - but you still have to change that direction.

Nice that you avoided actually looking at the numbers. I'm sure I said that after-touch is of limited use for cars, but you can get large enough jumps in GT6 to test its presence, alright.

Once again: how much force is required to rotate that 1800 kg car in mid-air? Hint: next-to-zero. New question: how fast does it need to rotate (what angle does it need to cover)? How much force is required to achieve that in a given timeframe? What timeframe should you be working to?

A trophy truck weighs near enough two tonnes, by the way.


No they're not.

Let's not lose sight of what this is about: the issue is that the game does not model the cars' components separately, and with an inertial representation in 3D space. If it did, rollovers etc. wouldn't look half as goofy as they do, and the general behaviour of the physics engine would be more natural.

Also, the cars do partially align themselves to the landing in GT6; they've done it since GT5 Prologue - it's all done before the car has finished taking off, though. It's a bit like the old roll-limit before GT5, where cars would just stop rotating once they reached a certain roll angle. Presumably they did that because the physics are so messed up once the car does roll over. It may actually just be another goofy behaviour due to not having all four contact patches on the ground as the car is in the process of taking off.

This is a legacy issue and may go away in time, but since PD can't really hack much more out of it, they'd really have to start again. That would be a significant investment of time and testing; maybe they're almost done, it's hard to know either way.

Next to zero force to rotate the car in air? What you are sidestepping is that the cars have inertia and momentum, they are not placed perfectly still in mid air. If the car is sailing flat then you don't want to alter its path, you only want to alter its path if the nose pointing in the wrong direction. This means that you just don't have to overcome the mass of the car but the mass*speed of the rotation.

And you are still ignoring the fact that cars in GT6 don't land flat like you say they do. As I have said, I have a picture taken from a replay of a car landing front first. Plus we have the moon buggy to consider, but you will just say they built a special model for that even though logically it makes no sense and you have no proof at all for it.

Also you say the cars don't roll properly, but they roll perfectly once you take into account they are absolutely solid objects. In real life cars would roll in exactly the same manor if they didn't lose energy to deformation of the body structure (compare a road car rollover to a rally car rollover. The one with the rollcage keeps lots of energy and keeps rolling and rolling, the road car destroys itself and stops quickly if it has a soft chassis). Or do you actually think that somehow altering the physics for the rotational mass will somehow make up for this lack of deformation?

As for the bike, pushing off air?.. You realize when you are on a bike... You are on a bike right? You can pull and push the bike into any position you like leveraging your body weight against it. Its like saying that you can't maneuver anything you are holding in space unless you are making contact with something else.

Oh and can you stop with the silly questions? I am not going to sit here doing very much pointless maths just because you want to me. There is no relevance to what you are asking.

Look, I agree that PD do not model the rotational mass correctly, or perhaps even at all. But that is NOT causing the cars to land flat, because they don't. It is NOT causing the rollover physics (which are perfectly fine IF the cars deform), and it is NOT causing the phantom changes people are talking about in this thread. Honestly I am not sure what you are trying to prove here.

 

[BrandonW77]

@Johnnypenso should we maybe change the thread title to "General physics discussion argument that has nothing to do with 1.06"?

 

[Griffith500]

Next to zero force to rotate the car in air? What you are sidestepping is that the cars have inertia and momentum, they are not placed perfectly still in mid air. If the car is sailing flat then you don't want to alter its path, you only want to alter its path if the nose pointing in the wrong direction. This means that you just don't have to overcome the mass of the car but the mass*speed of the rotation.

Newton: F=ma. It's the acceleration that matters.

And you are still ignoring the fact that cars in GT6 don't land flat like you say they do. As I have said, I have a picture taken from a replay of a car landing front first. Plus we have the moon buggy to consider, but you will just say they built a special model for that even though logically it makes no sense and you have no proof at all for it.

I never said that.

Also you say the cars don't roll properly, but they roll perfectly once you take into account they are absolutely solid objects. In real life cars would roll in exactly the same manor if they didn't lose energy to deformation of the body structure (compare a road car rollover to a rally car rollover. The one with the rollcage keeps lots of energy and keeps rolling and rolling, the road car destroys itself and stops quickly if it has a soft chassis). Or do you actually think that somehow altering the physics for the rotational mass will somehow make up for this lack of deformation?

It's nothing to do with modeling deformation or not. A perfectly rigid car, when impacting the ground on its nose and stopping dead, would roll over forwards onto its roof. In GT6, it doesn't rotate any more than it already was. When breakdancing on its a roof, a car can rotate against its supposed mass distribution (in the "gravity field") because the game doesn't model the car in that way, unless the wheels are on the ground.

As for the bike, pushing off air?.. You realize when you are on a bike... You are on a bike right? You can pull and push the bike into any position you like leveraging your body weight against it. Its like saying that you can't maneuver anything you are holding in space unless you are making contact with something else.

Newton: every action, equal and opposite reaction, and all that.
Also, conservation of (angular) momentum.

You absolutely must have something to push against if you want to change the net momentum (a vector quantity) of your body and whatever you might be maneuvering.

Braking the wheels implies a transfer of momentum from the wheels to the body. Without something to push against, the body will rotate to "compensate".

Oh and can you stop with the silly questions? I am not going to sit here doing very much pointless maths just because you want to me. There is no relevance to what you are asking.

The reason is because you don't actually know what you're talking about. It's quite annoying that in over two pages you didn't think to educate yourself on the basics.

Look, I agree that PD do not model the rotational mass correctly, or perhaps even at all. But that is NOT causing the cars to land flat, because they don't. It is NOT causing the rollover physics (which are perfectly fine IF the cars deform), and it is NOT causing the phantom changes people are talking about in this thread. Honestly I am not sure what you are trying to prove here.

All I'm saying is the physical model PD are using only works properly when all four wheels are on the ground. Anything else is grossly inaccurate. That includes "jumps", roll overs etc. Whether there is a change in that behaviour from 1.05 to 1.06 is impossible to say when people deny that it is even an issue.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Johnnypenso should we maybe change the thread title to "General physics discussion argument that has nothing to do with 1.06"?

Done...sort of...lol @Griffith500 is firing his big guns with Newton's Second Law of Motion. I'm anxiously awaiting to see if @nasanu disprove F=ma and what kind of rebuttal he comes up with. We'll call it Nasanu's First Law of Gran Turismo Physics Someone may have to notify the Nobel Prize Committee, who do we know in Sweden or Norway?

 

[BrandonW77]

Done...sort of...lol @Griffith500 is firing his big guns with Newton's Second Law of Motion. I'm anxiously awaiting to see if @nasanu disprove F=ma and what kind of rebuttal he comes up with. We'll call it Nasanu's First Law of Gran Turismo Physics Someone may have to notify the Nobel Prize Committee, who do we know in Sweden or Norway?

Perhaps the Ig Nobel would be more fitting.

 

[Vegard]

@Griffith500 In your opinion, is the "gravity" partly based on "magnetic" tyres?

Done...sort of...lol @Griffith500 is firing his big guns with Newton's Second Law of Motion. I'm anxiously awaiting to see if @nasanu disprove F=ma and what kind of rebuttal he comes up with. We'll call it Nasanu's First Law of Gran Turismo Physics Someone may have to notify the Nobel Prize Committee, who do we know in Sweden or Norway?

That would be someone from Sweden, we only hand out the "peace" prize.

 

[OdeFinn]

This might pop up some ideas why 1800kg car can be altered on airtime..

 

[psavi]

I didn't read all the posts, but I'll try to give some insight on the "is it possible to control pitch mid air with accelerator and brakes?" topic. Just so you know my background, I have a bachelor degree in mechanical engineering.

Forget mass, when we talk about rotation the physical quantity we are dealing with is polar moment of inertia, oftenly represented by the letter "I".

In a closed system, in this case the airborne car, conservation of the angular momentum (polar moment of inertia times angular velocity represented by the greek letter omega, but I'll use "w" here) applies.

So: I1 x w1 = I2 x w2

being 1 and 2, two different moments in time.

If we consider that the car is composed by the body and the four wheels, we'd have:

(Ibody1 x wbody1) + (Iwheels1 x wwheels1) = (Ibody2 x wbody2) + (Iwheels2 x wwheels2)

So, assuming the car is a rigid body and nothing will change position with respect to the axis of rotation, the only physical quantity that can change in the equation is angular velocity. If the angular velocity of the wheels change, the one of the body will change to compensate and keep the conservation of the angular momentum.

What happens within the closed system is that the body of the car applies torque to the wheels through the brake pads and by Newton's third law, the wheels apply torque to the body at the same intensity, same direction, but opposite way.

So, is it possible to control pitch mid air with accelerator and brakes? Yes. The amount you can control will depend on how big are Ibody and Iwheels. The closer they are the more change in rotation is possible.

As a rule of thumb, the lighter the car and the heavier the wheels, the more change will be possible.

 

[OdeFinn]

 

[FussyFez]

My brain is finding it hard to compute this thread.

I should have payed more attention in physics...


I understand the basics, but wrapping my head around the deeper stuff is always fun.

 

[mistersafeway]

Deeper stuff?...

 

[FussyFez]

Deeper stuff?...

 

[Mt. Lynx]

IIRC, cars in GT6' behaviour mid air, seems to be determined by weight distribution and/or downforce, not inertia/momentum.

 

[nasanu]

Newton: F=ma. It's the acceleration that matters.



I never said that.



It's nothing to do with modeling deformation or not. A perfectly rigid car, when impacting the ground on its nose and stopping dead, would roll over forwards onto its roof. In GT6, it doesn't rotate any more than it already was. When breakdancing on its a roof, a car can rotate against its supposed mass distribution (in the "gravity field") because the game doesn't model the car in that way, unless the wheels are on the ground.



Newton: every action, equal and opposite reaction, and all that.
Also, conservation of (angular) momentum.

You absolutely must have something to push against if you want to change the net momentum (a vector quantity) of your body and whatever you might be maneuvering.

Braking the wheels implies a transfer of momentum from the wheels to the body. Without something to push against, the body will rotate to "compensate".



The reason is because you don't actually know what you're talking about. It's quite annoying that in over two pages you didn't think to educate yourself on the basics.



All I'm saying is the physical model PD are using only works properly when all four wheels are on the ground. Anything else is grossly inaccurate. That includes "jumps", roll overs etc. Whether there is a change in that behaviour from 1.05 to 1.06 is impossible to say when people deny that it is even an issue.

Have you ever seen a car land right on it nose in GT6?... I have not. Give some evidence that the game switches physics models for a car off its wheels (which is a very stupid thing to do programming wise, why would you impose that performance deficit to produce worse physics?). All I have seen is that the physics remain identical given that there are limits to rotation online. Those limits are just caps on variables and not changes to the underlying physics.

Its not about changing momentum, if you are on a bike in the air and you climb over it you can change your relative positions to the ground without changing your trajectory. You don't need to push off anything but each other. If I jump off the ground is it impossible to take a ball in my left hand and place it into my right? That is basically what you are saying.


You can keep tying to insult me all you want, however you are doing nothing but constantly misunderstanding and inventing strawmen. You seem to keep claiming I am saying things about physics which contradict the standard model, but that your all your invention. Please keep giving little physics lessons in response to things you wish I have said rather than what I have written, it is only wasting the time of one of us.

 

[Dodzzz]

IIRC, cars in GT6' behaviour mid air, seems to be determined by weight distribution and/or downforce, not inertia/momentum.

I agree, in GT5, I remember I could plan the behaviour mid air of the car just by braking right before the car jumps (not in mid air) to make it more nose dive, or I could keep it full throttle to make the opposite.. in GT6 I couldn't do this anymore..

 

[Rafael F]

Sorry if off topic but, I think Le Mans feels more bumpy in GT6 than in GT5.
It was already bumpy in GT5, so I'm not sure if the track is different now or if just GT6 physics makes it feel more alive.
Does anyone feel the same?

 

[machschnel]

As for the bike, pushing off air?.. You realize when you are on a bike... You are on a bike right? You can pull and push the bike into any position you like leveraging your body weight against it. Its like saying that you can't maneuver anything you are holding in space unless you are making contact with something else.

Totally wrong. I spend most of my weekends racing motocross and I can say with absolute confidence that how you "leverage your weight" whilst airborne does very little, if anything. In a nose dive? Grab a handful of throttle (spinning the rear wheel, creating rotating mass, shifting weight rearward). Front end too high? Back brake to stop the spinning rear wheel. 4 strokes actually need to use a lot of throttle mid air to negate their heavy engine breaking (which of course causes nose diving). Movements made by your body are only really effective on the up ramp of a jump - you weight either peg before "take off" to whip/scrub in the desired direction.

 

[Dodzzz]

When I search for keywords like: "gyroscopic effect car long jump" on YouTube or even Google, it shows me a bunch of RC cars.. I haven't found any single real normal sized (1000-1500kg) car demonstrating the gyro effect when in mid air... so I don't believe it has that enough effect to make a real 1500kg car pitch up/down just by throttling or braking mid air, sure there must be some small effect, but I think it's negligible.

Until I see myself a real 1000-1500kg car pitch up the nose mid air just by throttling, I won't believe it.
(would someone send a request to mythbuster team to cover this?)

 

[Griffith500]

Dodzzz, that's because "gyroscopic" is a misnomer. Gyroscopes are stabilising devices that offer a perpendicular force in response to a change in orientation, relative to its axis of rotation (according to some handedness rule; which one I, forget) - its rotation rate is ideally not affected. What is actually happening when changing orientation in the air, as noted above, is momentum exchange between the rotating wheels and the rotating body. Both rotate on parallel axes and rotation rates change.

It's not really the core of the argument at this stage, it's a mere sideshow; dare I say it: a counter-straw-man, even.

Have you ever seen a car land right on it nose in GT6?... I have not. Give some evidence that the game switches physics models for a car off its wheels (which is a very stupid thing to do programming wise, why would you impose that performance deficit to produce worse physics?). All I have seen is that the physics remain identical given that there are limits to rotation online. Those limits are just caps on variables and not changes to the underlying physics.

I mess around in the infield of Willow Springs a fair bit, there's plenty of opportunity to nose dive, and instead of just scraping through the dirt and carrying on, the car stops dead - but doesn't roll over forwards as it should, either. That implies the collision force associated with stopping dead on the nose isn't translated into the car properly - the wheels are off the ground when that happens.

I'm not saying it "switches physics models", I'm saying the physics model is applied through the wheels by modifying contact forces according to whatever internal model they might be using, including downforce, suspension inertia etc. It's actually pretty ingenious in its execution, and must have been very useful on lesser hardware. I don't think it's necessary any more, and a proper distributed mass, free body simulation must surely be the next physics thing PD will bring out, at some point (it'll be prerequisite for a real aero model, for starters). It'll make everything work that much more naturally in every situation.

Its not about changing momentum, if you are on a bike in the air and you climb over it you can change your relative positions to the ground without changing your trajectory. You don't need to push off anything but each other. If I jump off the ground is it impossible to take a ball in my left hand and place it into my right? That is basically what you are saying.

What you don't notice is that by moving the ball, you move yourself as well. Of course, the ball weighs nothing, relatively, so it's negligible as far as your landing is concerned. It absolutely is about changing angular momentum; your ignorance is not evidence to the contrary. No, that's not an insult.

Consider the informed post above, written by psavi: For a car with rotating wheels, omega (of the wheels) is pretty high, off-setting the large difference in mass moment of inertia; that would translate to a low rotational rate in the body, but it turns out to be enough according to those who use the effect. That equation is effectively a momentum balance, because you can't change the momentum of the system without an external influence. This is classical mechanics, people have relied on it for hundreds of years.

You can keep tying to insult me all you want, however you are doing nothing but constantly misunderstanding and inventing strawmen. You seem to keep claiming I am saying things about physics which contradict the standard model, but that your all your invention. Please keep giving little physics lessons in response to things you wish I have said rather than what I have written, it is only wasting the time of one of us.

I'm not insulting you, it was a fact. Your denying that cars behave inaccurately when airborne contradicts physics. The "physics lesson" was a natural result of your own misunderstandings; the aim initially was to help - now it's to prevent mis-information. If you don't want to learn, that's up to you, but you're not exactly offering any real evidence of your own. My guess is you're conflating this with some other argument, part of a bigger "battle", but I ignore that nonsense.

I'd like to separate this issue from all of that and consider it in isolation: the free-body physics are wrong. (Compare.)

 

[MatskiMonk]

So, there's only one answer to this: A car, a pair of axle stands, a few spare tyres, and beer. SCIENCE!

 

[Griffith500]

So, there's only one answer to this: A car, a pair of axle stands, a few spare tyres, and beer. SCIENCE!

Yeah, accelerate the wheels up to speed, jump on the brakes and watch the car jump off / fold-over the stands!

 

[Johnnypenso]

So, there's only one answer to this: A car, a pair of axle stands, a few spare tyres, and beer. SCIENCE!

I already know the outcome, so all I need is the beer

 

[nasanu]

I'm not saying it "switches physics models", I'm saying the physics model is applied through the wheels by modifying contact forces according to whatever internal model they might be using, including downforce, suspension inertia etc. It's actually pretty ingenious in its execution, and must have been very useful on lesser hardware. I don't think it's necessary any more, and a proper distributed mass, free body simulation must surely be the next physics thing PD will bring out, at some point (it'll be prerequisite for a real aero model, for starters). It'll make everything work that much more naturally in every situation.

You are saying its 'ingenious in its execution', well to make that statement you must have knowledge of how they programmed it. Enlighten me because I am mid development of my own game and I'd love some insights. Even my in rubbish model everything has its own mass and acts independently on other objects with no magical transfer through the wheels, I guess I am doing something so much more advanced?.. And you say the aero is not real.. So what does it calculate then and how do you know this?

What you don't notice is that by moving the ball, you move yourself as well.

You just admitted the ball moves, its not relevant if you move also. If the ball moves then it can move relative to the ground which is all you are trying to do with the wheels. You were tying to say that it was not possible and tried to blind with science to make people believe your point without really understanding. And congrats it worked, but you still very well know how wrong you were.

I'm not insulting you, it was a fact. Your denying that cars behave inaccurately when airborne contradicts physics.

I've not said this, that is again your invention. What I have been saying all along is that a; cars do not land flat in GT6, b; modeling the rotational mass nor changes to wind modeling will not change the physics when a car is rolling on its roof because the problem is the conversation of energy and c; that in most jumps in GT6 with most cars inputs are not going to make a difference because the time of the jump is very small and the mass of the car is huge.

Then guys like you come in and start taking about extreme cases of jumps and misinterpreting what I am saying to the point of creating strawmen. Even the most simple classical physics examples I talked about, like the forced needed to push a stationary car vs the force needed to push a car moving in the opposite direction you claimed was wrong and posted a rubbish equation for. Oh and another great one was when I said the rotation of the engine mass and some drive train components rotate the wrong axis, which you claimed was wrong and they rotate the correct axis. I am still not sure how or why everyone bought that considering everyone here has sat in a car, revved the engine and seen the car rock side to side, but they still lap it up when you tell them no, the car rocks front to back. That is either extreme stupidity or simple trolling.


Oh and that youtube link shows that the rolling physics is very accurate considering invisible walls and a lack of deformation. What people tend not to understand is that often invisible walls are not physics objects (though at ground level they often are), they are game objects that when triggered will trigger code in the physics limiting further movement, but will not produce newton reactions and interactions. That is why cars just sometimes seem to get stuck in a position till they lose momentum and fall. They actually had enough velocity to keep going past the invisible wall (or ceiling) but limits come in and they don't move past it. But the actual physics engine is fine.

 

[Punknoodle]

I don't know if this has been discussed, but I'm having an issue keeping rear tires up to temperature since a recent update.

One of my usual past times is jumping in the likes of the SLS AMG GT3 and hot lapping Mt Panorama, the first lap is good but then my rears get colder and colder and it upsets the balance. I'm not exactly crawling around the track either, I'm in the 2.06 range, but they still go cold.

Are there any solutions for this?

 

[FussyFez]

I don't know if this has been discussed, but I'm having an issue keeping rear tires up to temperature since a recent update.

One of my usual past times is jumping in the likes of the SLS AMG GT3 and hot lapping Mt Panorama, the first lap is good but then my rears get colder and colder and it upsets the balance. I'm not exactly crawling around the track either, I'm in the 2.06 range, but they still go cold.

Are there any solutions for this?

Seeing as camber is broken and we don't have tyre pressure adjustment , all I can really think of is to stiffen the rear springs (putting more load through the tyres contact patch) and soften the rear arb a touch to compensate, this should also see the outer rear tyre being loaded more in the bends, hopefully keeping more heat in the process.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't know if this has been discussed, but I'm having an issue keeping rear tires up to temperature since a recent update.

One of my usual past times is jumping in the likes of the SLS AMG GT3 and hot lapping Mt Panorama, the first lap is good but then my rears get colder and colder and it upsets the balance. I'm not exactly crawling around the track either, I'm in the 2.06 range, but they still go cold.

Are there any solutions for this?

I did some Q laps at Mt. Panorama last night in the stock BRZ race car and noticed the same thing, tires didn't warm up in 3 or 4 laps. Maybe just a Bathurst thing...I signed off after that so I'm not sure. Had my usual sound issue there too...