Update 2.10 - Major PP changes

[Zuel]

So far everyone has shared old test results, old numbers from cars tuned with the old system. No has yet to share anything new from the new system with a newly build broken in car. All the cars and results and fact are based of the old system. Nothing more nothing less than that.

So wait, what you're telling me now is that if before the update I built a car and it had say 500pp, and now after the update it has 470pp if I build that exact same car after the update it won't come out at 470pp, exactly the same?

Because if so you're saying that not only can you not use all of the tuning options when tuning your car you also have to scrap over a years worth of car building and tuning and start from scratch with new cars?

Yet still you say this new PP update isn't flawed.

Do the test build a new car break it in and see the results for yourself. Trying to judge everything from the old system with old cars to the new system is foolish.

 

[Tornado]

If that's what you think or feel.

Do the test build a new car break it in and see the results for yourself. Trying to judge everything from the old system with old cars to the new system is foolish.

Just stop. There's no "think" about it. They didn't change the PP system so it would only be take effect for cars that you made up from scratch. It's ridiculous to think that they would (particularly when the last time there was a major change to the PP system they didn't), and you were already told that it doesn't anyway. Twice.

 

[Samus]

Do the test build a new car break it in and see the results for yourself. Trying to judge everything from the old system with old cars to the new system is foolish.

No it's not, because this new system was applied over the top of the old system by PD. This isn't a new game, it was an update to the current game so if you're suggesting everyone is wrong to say it's flawed because they're using "old" cars that have had their PP adjusted by the update then that is madness. PD never said anything about having to start from scratch for the new PP system to work properly.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Up-tune, step-tune, de-tune, re-tune and I-tune, what the hell difference does it make?

The fact remains that after this update FR cars dominate every online race. At least at the lower end of the PP scale where I race.

 

[Steph290]

Can everyone stop replying to Zuel and get on with analyzing the problem in game, cause all he's doing is repeating himself and crowding this forum. Dang, the last 5 pages is all the same and clearly dude's not getting it.

I have a question, has anyone yet compared lap times of various cars at stock settings, with similar performance points to see if they perform close to each other untouched? Im wondering if the system is less screwed with stock cars than after tuning. Especially between drivetrains. Im trying to find if FWD will ever be able to compete again, other than in situations with low traction.

e.g. An untouched Supra next to another stock car with similar pp

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Can everyone stop replying to Zuel and get on with analyzing the problem in game, cause all he's doing is repeating himself and crowding this forum.

I hear ya man.

I was planning a response, until I clicked on his link and saw his wall of text and his "did you pay attention to me" pole. Step tuning, grouping system, kids have such great imaginations.

If someone would submit an idea in the feedback section of gtplanet about repealing this monstrosity of a PP update I would gladly vote for it.

I am currently running FR allowed rooms, then 1/2 way into the night banning FR cars just so people can run their other drivetrain cars.

 

[MrWednesday]

I have a question, has anyone yet compared lap times of various cars at stock settings, with similar performance points to see if they perform close to each other untouched? Im wondering if the system is less screwed with stock cars than after tuning. Especially between drivetrains. Im trying to find if FWD will ever be able to compete again, other than in situations with low traction.

I just ran this test:
362 PP Volkwagen Golf IV GTI '01 vs.
354 PP Mazda RX-7 GT-X (FC) '90

at Deep Forest, which stretches the cars out a little but certainly isn't what I'd call an HP track (high-PP stuff might not get above 150 mph).

Both cars were bone stock, brand new from the dealer, not even an oil change, running on stock (comfort soft) tires. The VW is an FF car making ~150 HP. The RX-7 is an FR car making ~200 HP. Both weigh about the same.

I got a 1:38 with the RX-7 and a 1:42 with the Golf, and it felt like I had more room for improvement with the RX-7 than the Golf. So yeah, the system is pretty well screwed with stock cars---4s is an eternity on laps that quick.



Edit: Added a BMW Z4 '03 at 364 PP, ~220 HP, also brand new, bone stock, CS tires. Got a 1:36.6 with it. So far, FF cars are borked relative to FR cars. I'll see if I can find an MR to try.

Edit 2: Added a Hommel Berlinette R/S Coupe '99 at 391 PP, ~160 HP, it was the first 0-miles MR car I found in my standard garage (premium MRs start a good bit higher). I got a 1:37.6 with it, but I was sketchier with my lines than with the RX-7 and VW so there might be another second or more left on the table there. Considering that's 30+ PP more than the comparably-timed FR cars, it looks like MR cars are equally as borked relative to FR cars as FF cars are.

Edit 3: Tried a Lancia Delta HF Integrale Evoluzione '91 at 397 PP, ~200 HP. The PP are a little high, but it's a 0-miles 4WD in my premium garage that's in the same ballpark as some other cars I tested. I only got a 1:40.0 with it, but that's probably partly because it understeers like a pig, typical of 4WD behavior in my previous experience. At comparable weight and HP to the Z4 and RX-7, I expect it to have comparable straight-line speed.

Ultimate conclusion: FR cars should have their actual PP either multiplied by about 1.1 (maybe a shade more), or they should have 30 to 40 PP added to their PP. I'd need to repeat the same test for cars around 500 PP stock to say which. FF, MR, and 4WD all appear to be more or less OK.

 

[GBRC tyrrell]

I hope people are having fun nitpicking the new system.

PD still need to hit ctrl-z on 2.10.

 

[thelvynau]

I hope people are having fun nitpicking the new system.

PD still need to hit ctrl-z on 2.10.

I have always thought that I would prefer to work with what you have, try to change with the game.

 

[GBRC tyrrell]

@ Ivy, in principle I'd agree. Always good to have a new challenge.

But there's a clear difference between opening up new horizons and throwing a spanner in the game's engine. Me and many others have put a lot of work in devising formulae and series based on the old PP system, but all that's gone down the toilet. For no good reason whatsoever. And as customers we've every right to complain. PD, meanwhile, are unreachable. Like Kim Jong Un.

 

[Steph290]

Ultimate conclusion: FR cars should have their actual PP either multiplied by about 1.1 (maybe a shade more), or they should have 30 to 40 PP added to their PP. I'd need to repeat the same test for cars around 500 PP stock to say which. FF, MR, and 4WD all appear to be more or less OK.

Yeah, so in the end the FFs and 4WDs remain at a the same pp, but with less performance, while FRs drop drastically giving some a chance to raise their levels and boost performance. At first a lot of people thought the drop in pp was given to cars that handled worse(heavier cars or with not-so-great chassis), but I think it can be said now that there was just a huge boost given to FR and RR cars alone. Stock handling characteristics cannot be a factor if that Lancia Delta put up a slower time at a much higher pp. I'm really wondering how PD calculated the new pp system, if it was even calculated at all.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I just ran this test:
362 PP Volkwagen Golf IV GTI '01 vs.
354 PP Mazda RX-7 GT-X (FC) '90

at Deep Forest, which stretches the cars out a little but certainly isn't what I'd call an HP track (high-PP stuff might not get above 150 mph).

Both cars were bone stock, brand new from the dealer, not even an oil change, running on stock (comfort soft) tires. The VW is an FF car making ~150 HP. The RX-7 is an FR car making ~200 HP. Both weigh about the same.

I got a 1:38 with the RX-7 and a 1:42 with the Golf, and it felt like I had more room for improvement with the RX-7 than the Golf. So yeah, the system is pretty well screwed with stock cars---4s is an eternity on laps that quick.



Edit: Added a BMW Z4 '03 at 364 PP, ~220 HP, also brand new, bone stock, CS tires. Got a 1:36.6 with it. So far, FF cars are borked relative to FR cars. I'll see if I can find an MR to try.

Edit 2: Added a Hommel Berlinette R/S Coupe '99 at 391 PP, ~160 HP, it was the first 0-miles MR car I found in my standard garage (premium MRs start a good bit higher). I got a 1:37.6 with it, but I was sketchier with my lines than with the RX-7 and VW so there might be another second or more left on the table there. Considering that's 30+ PP more than the comparably-timed FR cars, it looks like MR cars are equally as borked relative to FR cars as FF cars are.

Edit 3: Tried a Lancia Delta HF Integrale Evoluzione '91 at 397 PP, ~200 HP. The PP are a little high, but it's a 0-miles 4WD in my premium garage that's in the same ballpark as some other cars I tested. I only got a 1:40.0 with it, but that's probably partly because it understeers like a pig, typical of 4WD behavior in my previous experience. At comparable weight and HP to the Z4 and RX-7, I expect it to have comparable straight-line speed.

Ultimate conclusion: FR cars should have their actual PP either multiplied by about 1.1 (maybe a shade more), or they should have 30 to 40 PP added to their PP. I'd need to repeat the same test for cars around 500 PP stock to say which. FF, MR, and 4WD all appear to be more or less OK.

Thanks for the testing..

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

I tuned at least 50 cars to use and abuse in McClarenDesign's room, all tuned for 420PP in V2.09. I had approx a 45% selection of FF cars, 45% of old FR cars that no one used, the other 10% being your usual suspects.

For months, I have been using the Nurburgring GP/F track to set lap times, test tunes, and compare the pace of all of my 420PP cars. Normally, I would use the old FR cars as "troll" cars, normally people thought they were terrible to drive, slow, and I always painted them in bright pink or a hideous luminous colour. However, I always made them competitive.

Up until V2.09, those 50 or so cars only had a 4 second margin from fastest to slowest, many of the fastest cars actually being FF's. Now, McClarenDesign has altered his usual room settings to 415PP to compensate for the new PP system a little. Thus, I have altered all of my 420PP cars to the new settings.

All of those FR cars in my selection were good enough as they were, but now they are simply bonkers. On average, my FR cars at 5 PP lower than what they used to be are 7 - 7.5 seconds quicker around the Nurb GP/F, while all of the other cars are now slightly slower than they used to be due to the 5 PP forced downgrade. Certainly shows that the new system is broken to me.

People argue that you need to use lower grade tyres in this circumstance, but we use CS and SH tyres in that room, and even against the new improved Toyobaruion 86BR-S GT, you can still pull a 3 second lead in 2.2 tonne Merc by the first corner of a race, and then gain 1-2 seconds on each and every straight section.

I have a few old and new ghosts for these cars on the Nurb, so can directly compare V2.09 and V.2.10 PP systems at any time.

 

[Z1-AV69]

If I may conclude: We now know, it's not the tyres and it's not the tuning.

The open question remaining is: What was the reasoning for PD to make this change? And is there a systematic of the changes which could give a hint of the reasons or what is yet to come?

Edit: I can admit: I have no idea, it just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If I may conclude: We now know, it's not the tyres and it's not the tuning.

The open question remaining is: What was the reasoning for PD to make this change? And is there a systematic of the changes which could give a hint for the reasons or what is yet to come?

I go back to something I've been saying for a while now, PD has a complete disconnect between the nuts and bolts and actual playing of the game and programming. There is no other conclusion you can draw that makes this make sense. Reminds me of a company I used to work for where the office staff and upper management had no clue what was happening in the field, in the real world. They made decisions that made no sense to even the lowest paid, part time clerk and as a result, had a field staff that had near complete disdain for the Head Office.

Think about this. A near on $5Billion gaming franchise, a major change to the Performance Points matching system that is supposed to provide competitive racing across the many cars in the game and no one tested it. No one tested it. This change did not come about as a result of test driving before hand, accumulating data and making adjustments. The change was not tested out on the track after it was complete. This change was done by the programming guys, who obviously have no clue how the game works in reality and the effect of the changes they made.

The change was made in a lab and unleashed on the public with no testing whatsoever. I expect a lot more for $5Billion.

 

[Motor City Hami]

So far everyone has shared old test results, old numbers from cars tuned with the old system. No has yet to share anything new from the new system with a newly build broken in car. All the cars and results and fact are based of the old system. Nothing more nothing less than that.

I tuned at least 50 cars to use and abuse in McClarenDesign's room, all tuned for 420PP in V2.09. I had approx a 45% selection of FF cars, 45% of old FR cars that no one used, the other 10% being your usual suspects.

For months, I have been using the Nurburgring GP/F track to set lap times, test tunes, and compare the pace of all of my 420PP cars. Normally, I would use the old FR cars as "troll" cars, normally people thought they were terrible to drive, slow, and I always painted them in bright pink or a hideous luminous colour. However, I always made them competitive.

Up until V2.09, those 50 or so cars only had a 4 second margin from fastest to slowest, many of the fastest cars actually being FF's. Now, McClarenDesign has altered his usual room settings to 415PP to compensate for the new PP system a little. Thus, I have altered all of my 420PP cars to the new settings.

All of those FR cars in my selection were good enough as they were, but now they are simply bonkers. On average, my FR cars at 5 PP lower than what they used to be are 7 - 7.5 seconds quicker around the Nurb GP/F, while all of the other cars are now slightly slower than they used to be due to the 5 PP forced downgrade. Certainly shows that the new system is broken to me.

People argue that you need to use lower grade tyres in this circumstance, but we use CS and SH tyres in that room, and even against the new improved Toyobaruion 86BR-S GT, you can still pull a 3 second lead in 2.2 tonne Merc by the first corner of a race, and then gain 1-2 seconds on each and every straight section.

I have a few old and new ghosts for these cars on the Nurb, so can directly compare V2.09 and V.2.10 PP systems at any time.

These two posts are conflicting information. Now I don't know which to believe. One has tested 50 cars and I lost count of what the other has actually driven in testing.

 

[Z1-AV69]

You're probably right @Johnnypenso. But in their favor we have to admit: This testing for the 1000+ cars in the game would be a lot to test. Especially if considering, what some crazy guys can get out of a car given enough time.

I remember the event when David Coulthart did a laptime with the SLS in real life and the GT'ers in the event beat it so bad they had to change the tyres. They obviously had no clue what the game version is.

Motor City Hami said somewhere else, they should have all the data from their servers. But I doubt that. You have to program such monitoring features into your server-program or you will know nothing. If they had such data from online races, shouldn't they publish something from it to amuse us and show how great they are? They didn't so I believe they don't have any data.

The question is: Can we as the player community provide the data? Like working on a list of cars with suggested changes to it's PP?

 

[GBRC tyrrell]

This is the thing I don't like about PD. They're like Pyongyang. They are closed off to their customers. There's no way to contact them (except snail mail and perhaps just rocking up to their gaff, but good luck getting inside). There's no additional information to be had from them, and when they give it, it's basically in Engrish. We don't know what they're doing, or whether they follow these forums, or whether indeed they have online game settings data on their servers. No idea about whether, or how, they learn about just what their gamers are doing with the game.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You're probably right @Johnnypenso. But in their favor we have to admit: This testing for the 1000+ cars in the game would be a lot to test. Especially if considering, what some crazy guys can get out of a car given enough time.

I remember the event when David Coulthart did a laptime with the SLS in real life and the GT'ers in the event beat it so bad they had to change the tyres. They obviously had no clue what the game version is.

Motor City Hami said somewhere else, they should have all the data from their servers. But I doubt that. You have to program such monitoring features into your server-program or you will know nothing. If they had such data from online races, shouldn't they publish something from it to amuse us and show how great they are? They didn't so I believe they don't have any data.

The question is: Can we as the player community provide the data? Like working on a list of cars with suggested changes to it's PP?

Your Coulthard example only serves to prove my point. They had one and only one car to check and couldn't figure that out either. You don't really need to test all 1000 cars because I don't think all 1000 cars are serious racing machines but even then, it could be done. Hire 10-20 drivers, some of the best, some middle of the road and some below average, pay them $50-100k/year to do nothing but test drive 40 hours per week. That could work out to 100,000 laps per month or 100 laps per car. In a year you could have 1000 laps per vehicle.

If you separated cars into categories testing and sorting PP would be even easier. A category would define cars in a certain way and cars within the category would be roughly equivalent on the track to each other, on spec tires. That way you wouldn't be trying to equalize cars that really have no business being on the track together. For example, although it's possible to do so within the parameters of the game, I don't think PD should waste time trying to make a detuned M3CSL compete with a Ford RS200 and a Toyota Rally Car and the Caterham. The M3 should be in a group with the GT-R's, the NSX's, Evora's etc.

Online data would be skewed by too much by uneven tuning and RS tire use. It nullifies much of the natural handling characteristics of the car. I think the PP system should be based on the base vehicle on base tires.

 

[97z28]

When I blow past JDM cars in my muscle cars at 450pp in the straights, I feel like honking the General Lee horn, doing the yee haw Bo Duke yell and waiving goodbye for good measure. I had alot of fun yesterday.

 

[APXCaramel]

I expect a lot more for $5Billion.

You get used to things like this when living in America.

 

[Samus]

You're probably right @Johnnypenso. But in their favor we have to admit: This testing for the 1000+ cars in the game would be a lot to test. Especially if considering, what some crazy guys can get out of a car given enough time.

The point of a PP system is that it's scientific and based on numbers coming out of the physics engine so they shouldn't need to test all 1000 cars. Breaking it down massively the idea is each car has specific values for weight, power, suspension values etc and these are then supposed to be interpreted by the PP system to make cars equal. Clearly PDs algorithms aren't quite right though.

I still think it's a mistake that tyres are not calculated in PP, they're a huge part of the physics engine and so it seems odd not to include them to me.

 

[Mulan]

The point of a PP system is that it's scientific and based on numbers coming out of the physics engine so they shouldn't need to test all 1000 cars. Breaking it down massively the idea is each car has specific values for weight, power, suspension values etc and these are then supposed to be interpreted by the PP system to make cars equal. Clearly PDs algorithms aren't quite right though.

I still think it's a mistake that tyres are not calculated in PP, they're a huge part of the physics engine and so it seems odd not to include them to me.

Dont think tyres should be in a PP system. Otherwise we get fast cars getting lower PP with tyres, still on straight they will take all others out. Better that tyres have no effect on PP and all choose same tyres, which will be the best allowed in the race.

 

[MrWednesday]

You're probably right @Johnnypenso. But in their favor we have to admit: This testing for the 1000+ cars in the game would be a lot to test. Especially if considering, what some crazy guys can get out of a car given enough time.

It took me no more than an hour to do the testing I posted above. There's no excuse for PD failing to do a high-level test like that (at two or three different performance levels) to make sure their adjustments work. 👎

The only explanations I can think of are that they were trying to fix a single car and changed a general parameter to do so, or somebody accidentally checked in some unrelated trial code and they don't do a pre-release test that would catch it (perhaps focusing more on making sure nothing crashes, things of that nature).

 

[Samus]

Dont think tyres should be in a PP system. Otherwise we get fast cars getting lower PP with tyres, still on straight they will take all others out. Better that tyres have no effect on PP and all choose same tyres, which will be the best allowed in the race.

How is that any different to what they have now, 800bhp muscle cars on racing soft easily beating anything else also on racing softs? At least with tyres in the PP calculation the muscle car would be forced onto worse rubber than the sports car with less power if they want to stay at the same PP.

It's always going to be hard, almost impossible to match high power muscle cars with lower powered grip cars and depending on the track one or the other is probably always going to win. Adding tyres would at least help a little bit.

 

[MrWednesday]

So instead of fixing the real problem (which is something clearly broken in the PP calculation), you'd rather paper over it with a tire fudge-factor?

(I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that there could be value in adding a tire contribution to PP, but that's a completely separate discussion from the current FR borkenness.)

 

[Samus]

So instead of fixing the real problem (which is something clearly broken in the PP calculation), you'd rather paper over it with a tire fudge-factor?

No I didn't say that, I just said tyres should be included as well. The PP system is clearly still broken in other areas as I said in the paragraph before I mentioned tyres.

 

[MrWednesday]

Fair enough, I don't think we disagree.

 

[APXCaramel]

Handling versus power......... Not Handling and power versus Handling and no power.

I think every upgrade should be factored in. Forza has it correct with the PI system. There are 3 cars total that have an advantage.... then there are the faster cars of the class and then some that need work.

But having Power/Weight has the only PP factor.... that's a bit out there.

 

[Spagetti69]

If tire performance can reduce a lap time then it should be included in PP calcs.