Was PD just sticking 2 fingers up at its own BoP

[Batschisane52]

THis is tricky for PD and I do not expect them to nail it and it has been exacerbated by the ability to rent cars so no stopping everyone using the meta. In saying that, whilst I get it is hard to avoid a meta the issue I have is the gap tot he next car, at Monza this week there is literally nothing even close to the supra. The vette kinda sorta can compete but tbh it's a struggle. It was almost as bad the week before at Sardegna, I used the Z4 which run out of top end by the middle of the straights but at least the secure rear end made me competitive vs guys losing it in the supra.

The other issue with the supra right now is the relatively secure rear end, so not only is it fast, it's one of the more stable cars when you git the gas, the jag and the stang are way, way harder to get on the gas with. This circles back tot he ridiculous TC settings, TC1 will dead set lose you a second on slow corner exit, it is way, way, way too strong and means for some users they cannot contemplate anything but cars with good rear ends.

Really...?
I got the Gr3 Supra from the Roulette, and didn't even use it once because I hated it in GTSport and found it really hard to drive there as well(although it seemed to be meta on many races...)

Don't know, I still don't like it(because it still seems to be the meta car on many tracks), even if it is easier to drive now...but that's just me and my personal taste(another reason why I didn't like it:I created a Falken livery for it, just to find out afterwards, that actuallly I don't like that torquiose and blue color scheme at all... 😅 )

On the other hand I find the Jags(both Gr3 and Gr4) really easy to drive and really easy to controll...my favorit choces for races taht require a Gr3/Gr4 car...

 

[br1x]

I would argue most people who regulary drive higher-ranked lobbies in Gr.2, Gr. 3 or Gr. 4 cars would agree that the BoP is pretty horrendous at the moment and has been since the start of the game.

In Gr. 3 it is one of maybe 4-5 cars that is the fastest on almost every track out of the Supra, Impreza, BRZ, Beetle and the Genesis and sadly on most tracks that are somewhat higher speed it is always the Supra that is fastest.
In every higher ranked daily race lobby on almost every track, you will find the top drivers to be in one of those cars.
MR cars are still heavily underpowered, they are rarely seen.

In Gr. 4 it is the same with the Nissan, Subaru and Alfa 155 being the best on almost every track bar maybe very specific exceptions.
So here, AWD cars are clearly the best.

Gr. 2 is even worse, where it is a 1 car race most of the time with either the CLK LM or the Nissan GT500 '16 because the cars are so different. The CLK dominates high speed tracks, the '16 GT500 cars dominate the more downforce-dependant tracks with the Nissan usually being the fastest and best on tires.
The McLaren F1 is completeley irrelevant as for some reason it has over 40hp less than the CLK under BoP, making it about as fast the '16 GT500 cars on the straights with nowhere near the cornering ability and the old GT500s are just slower versions of the '16 cars.

Of course in lower level lobbies you will find more diverse fields and of course you can beat someone worse than you with a slower car, but in my opinion the gap between the "meta" cars and the other cars is way too big right now.

 

[NevilleNobody]

Really...?
I got the Gr3 Supra from the Roulette, and didn't even use it once because I hated it in GTSport and found it really hard to drive there as well(although it seemed to be meta on many races...)

It's got a far more secure rear end than in GTS. I use the X button so gas is a light switch, my favourite car is the Z4 because TC in GT7 is unusable in A lobbies, you just lose way too much time. "competitive" group 3 cars since GT7 was released include the following;

Supra
Beetle
M6
Jag
Mustang
Vette
Genesis X
Renault
WRX
Z4

Of those cars the Z4 stands alone in terms of rear end grip then daylight, second is the supra then daylight again before a bunch of cars after that.

The SUpra in GTS had a very lively rear end but with TC1 or even TC2 I could race with it. In GT7, something like say the Mustang, absolutely no chance, TC0 it's just too lively for me and TC1 it bogs down, losing half a second on each 1st or 2nd gear exit.

 

[JDM_GT7]

It's got a far more secure rear end than in GTS. I use the X button so gas is a light switch, my favourite car is the Z4 because TC in GT7 is unusable in A lobbies, you just lose way too much time. "competitive" group 3 cars since GT7 was released include the following;

Supra
Beetle
M6
Jag
Mustang
Vette
Genesis X
Renault
WRX
Z4

Of those cars the Z4 stands alone in terms of rear end grip then daylight, second is the supra then daylight again before a bunch of cars after that.

The SUpra in GTS had a very lively rear end but with TC1 or even TC2 I could race with it. In GT7, something like say the Mustang, absolutely no chance, TC0 it's just too lively for me and TC1 it bogs down, losing half a second on each 1st or 2nd gear exit.

honestly I find the 911 one of the most tractable Gr3 cars on corner exit.
The issue with the RSR is you have to kind of V shape all tight turns because of it really hard to trail brake as it goes from understeer to snap oversteer underbraking pretty easily. The 911 RSR is one of the most different cars and I also feel like lack of fuel for qualifying hurts it alot, in race trims its pretty good and I was faster at Nurburgring fuel saver with it than the BRZ. I find the Z4 as you describe, but also the Hyundai Genesis coupe (I know confusing because of the Genesis brand), and I also find the Beetle pretty easy on the rear end as well.

 

[NevilleNobody]

honestly I find the 911 one of the most tractable Gr3 cars on corner exit.
The issue with the RSR is you have to kind of V shape all tight turns because of it really hard to trail brake as it goes from understeer to snap oversteer underbraking pretty easily. The 911 RSR is one of the most different cars and I also feel like lack of fuel for qualifying hurts it alot, in race trims its pretty good and I was faster at Nurburgring fuel saver with it than the BRZ. I find the Z4 as you describe, but also the Hyundai Genesis coupe (I know confusing because of the Genesis brand), and I also find the Beetle pretty easy on the rear end as well.

Agree with all that but I said competitive The RSR and mcLaren are super stable on exit but so down on power they are very, very tough to race with.

 

[redbullfix]

the only thing the Supra is not great at is fuel efficiency, in every other aspect it is way better than any other car

The Supra is certainly not the best handling on the GR.3 list

 

[Voodoovaj]

What I'd like to see is - as with the real-world - a per race BOP, and have stated so on several occasions.

Best statement in this thread. There's no reason why this can't be done for the GR cars.

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

What I'd like to see is - as with the real-world - a per race BOP, and have stated so on several occasions.

I said when he/she/it was first announced, this is a perfect task for Sophy. With the ability to drive automated laps in each car and balance them to within hundredths on every circuit GT7 could have the greatest BOP in any game.

 

[Nuschel01]

[...]

PD would need to get rid of all physics exploits Sophy is using first then tho

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

PD would need to get rid of all physics exploits Sophy is using first then tho

Sophy is an iRacer? 🙈

 

[Nuschel01]

Sophy is an iRacer? 🙈

She would probably also be able to find a way to kerb-, brake- and handbrake-boost

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

She would probably also be able to find a way to kerb-, brake- and handbrake-boost

I miss my handbrake 😓

It shouldn't matter to be honest, if they use Sophy for theoretical lap times and set a rule in the code that the car has to be within the white lines all the way around even if it's slower than top split the cars should all be fairly well balanced.

 

[Saargasm]

The PP system is badly flawed and broken. Just remember the Tomahawk glitch (RIP). PD have absolutely no idea how to balance these cars out and as such should just give up or return to a basic levelling system. eg Power, weight and downforce. There is no need to be concerned with suspension or tyres and when they do this is where they are getting unstuck every time.

I am going to graphically prove here how badly broken it is with some screen shots of tunes, all of which are readily available on this site.

Lets start with my favourite tuner, Praiano. If you're reading this, I really am a big fan, keep up the good work.

The car is the Alpine A220 currently being used by me (and many, many others) for the Tokyo rain event.

Below is Praino's tune at PP 599.18 using SH tyres and has 358 BHP. Nice tune drives very well and is what I would expect from this car.

View attachment 1176885

So here is the tune that most of us use at PP 495.83 running RS tyres and 451BHP a 100ish HP more that Praiano and on Race Soft tyres! Sorry Praiano but this tune kicks yours to the curb ;-)

View attachment 1176886


But wait, there is more. I take this same tune and do nothing BUT change to racing Intermediates from RS and the PP goes up (WTF!!) to 702.59 Then see the next one down where I put on Racing Hards!


View attachment 1176888



Racing Hards nothing else in the tune changed, just tyres and the PP is now 730.57. So the tune has changed the PP by a whopping PP135 by going to a supposedly slower tyre!!!!


View attachment 1176889


BUT wait there is more and this is the bit that I am really wanting everyone to see. So we take this original PP 595.83 tune and the ONLY change is the front toe, nothing else, just the toe by 0.04dg and the PP jumps to 749.58!!!! I challenge anyone to justify how that should be allowed happen and why it should continue!

Toe Out from 0.12 to Toe Out 0.08!!!


View attachment 1176890



As you can see the PP system is, as I said originally, badly flawed and why I don't want to race online. How on earth can anyone expect such a bunch of incompetent idiots to organise a BoP system when this garbage is allowed to happen?!

And no, it is not only this car that that is affected but every one that I have attempted to tune to some degree. To stay within a PP I have taken 40-50BHP out of tune just because I altered the toe or camber a little bit >:-(

Cars, as with people, some are just better than others at certain things. The harder PD tries to even the playing field the worse they make it.

But this ridiculous situation I have demonstrated above turns this whole thing into a farce >:-(

BoP should be referenced at 40% weight, 40% bhp and 20% downforce (measured over the whole car not just wings) NO tyres, NO tuning, NO nuthin' else. You restrict the races by tyre choice and min/max weight and car category. (Which is another thing PD screwed up BUT that is another subject).

Personally I treat this whole game as a joke and never miss an opportunity to take advantage of any little glitch that slips through. And there will be more ;-)



PS don't even get me started on track limits or cheating/ramming AI >:-(

It has to do with specific values returned in a simulated test - PP is calculated on the spot, I believe. With the "glitch" tune, on the rotational G measurement, for 240 km/h, it is a much more neutral value of 0.44, compared to the +1.41 & +1.51 for 60/120 km/h respectfully.

While I'm not completely sure this is how it is done, the game simulates your car turning at full steering angle, with constant throttle applied, to keep the speed set exactly to 240 km/h. The number that is recorded is a measure of how much understeer (positive) or oversteer (negative) the car has at those speeds while neither accelerating or decelerating. Stability measures the behavior of the car's handling, while Rotational G measures the performance of the car's handling. So with the tune everyone is using, when it simulates the test, at 240 km/h something "wonky" happens to the car - maybe it's shifting at that spot, or the turbo kicks in strongly, I don't know, I'm not the most knowledgeable about tuning. All I know is that the game thinks you have a much different/lower stability "performance" with that tune and that making even the slightest of adjustments, changes what the car does specifically at 240 km/h to that of normal performance, thus the increase in PP.

If you look at the RotG measurements in the "glitch" tune screenshot and then you change the tires/tune suspension/aero (your other examples), and compare it, it jumps back up to the "normal" value of 1.73, as shown in your last example when you adjusted the toe. It is literally so specific to this exact tune settings that if you change the rim size and offset them, the PP jumps. Hell, if you do all the settings and don't put the racing intercooler, the PP measures in the 700's - so it has to do with how it is calculating/measuring the performance when you make adjustments and how those adjustments measure at 3-specific speeds (for RotG measurements).

It's this method of calculating the PP (simulated performance tests when you hit re-calc) that allows players to find "glitches" in tunes. I use quotation marks because I don't know if it is technically a glitch or just taking advantage of an incongruency in a formula. The reason it took so long to patch the Tomahawk (RIP) was them attempting to find a solution without with the gearbox pp variable being disabled, which ended up being the case (I think the game would get stuck thinking the car couldn't shift out of 1st gear due to how you had to have it setup with 1-3rd being on-top of each other).

Now I'm curious to see other adjustments that seem to be "out of left field" when impacting the pp in a strange way, and what performance measurements seem to change the most, but I don't have enough time to play as it is

 

[TT92]

It has to do with specific values returned in a simulated test - PP is calculated on the spot, I believe. With the "glitch" tune, on the rotational G measurement, for 240 km/h, it is a much more neutral value of 0.44, compared to the +1.41 & +1.51 for 60/120 km/h respectfully.

While I'm not completely sure this is how it is done, the game simulates your car turning at full steering angle, with constant throttle applied, to keep the speed set exactly to 240 km/h. The number that is recorded is a measure of how much understeer (positive) or oversteer (negative) the car has at those speeds while neither accelerating or decelerating. Stability measures the behavior of the car's handling, while Rotational G measures the performance of the car's handling. So with the tune everyone is using, when it simulates the test, at 240 km/h something "wonky" happens to the car - maybe it's shifting at that spot, or the turbo kicks in strongly, I don't know, I'm not the most knowledgeable about tuning. All I know is that the game thinks you have a much different/lower stability "performance" with that tune and that making even the slightest of adjustments, changes what the car does specifically at 240 km/h to that of normal performance, thus the increase in PP.

If you look at the RotG measurements in the "glitch" tune screenshot and then you change the tires/tune suspension/aero (your other examples), and compare it, it jumps back up to the "normal" value of 1.73, as shown in your last example when you adjusted the toe. It is literally so specific to this exact tune settings that if you change the rim size and offset them, the PP jumps. Hell, if you do all the settings and don't put the racing intercooler, the PP measures in the 700's - so it has to do with how it is calculating/measuring the performance when you make adjustments and how those adjustments measure at 3-specific speeds (for RotG measurements).

It's this method of calculating the PP (simulated performance tests when you hit re-calc) that allows players to find "glitches" in tunes. I use quotation marks because I don't know if it is technically a glitch or just taking advantage of an incongruency in a formula. The reason it took so long to patch the Tomahawk (RIP) was them attempting to find a solution without with the gearbox pp variable being disabled, which ended up being the case (I think the game would get stuck thinking the car couldn't shift out of 1st gear due to how you had to have it setup with 1-3rd being on-top of each other).

Now I'm curious to see other adjustments that seem to be "out of left field" when impacting the pp in a strange way, and what performance measurements seem to change the most, but I don't have enough time to play as it is

I do agree with everything you say here and also sincerely empathise with you lack of playing time.

Again, my whole point here is to accurately demonstrate how totally screwed up the PP system is and how PD can't get it right. So expecting BoP to be even remotely close, would IMHO, be beyond PD's capability.

The only fair and equitable solution I would envisage would be time trials for each vehicle in that class, at a particular track by say the top 10 human racers. I say human as from what I saw of Sophy at the Nordschleife I have absolutely no confidence in that method as it only demonstrates more abuse of the rules and physics by AI :-(

The only other easily achievable BoP leveller is to only have single car races. Boring I hear you say, well just look at what we have now, a single car race where one car dominates. So either way it is a single car race :-(

For the record I have no confidence in PD rectifying it anytime in the near future.

 

[Meythia]

Again, my whole point here is to accurately demonstrate how totally screwed up the PP system is and how PD can't get it right. So expecting BoP to be even remotely close, would IMHO, be beyond PD's capability.

I dont agree on this.
BoP and PP are 2 fundamentally different systems.
PP is an attempt at making an all around measurement system (which was better with gearbox into PP as long as not bugged)
BoP is a predefined setup to average out performance across all cars.

This is literally apples and oranges.

 

[LGintheNL]

I dont see the problem.. PD has Sophie they can simulate car + track dozens of times, thats even better than real-world BoP.

Just take a track like Catalunya that is pretty balanced (S1 fast - S2 med - S3 slow). Let Sophie drive an average refenrence lap, then go by car and adjust BoP so that car is within like .2 thenths (on average) of the set reference lap? Thats like a morning of work for Sophie ?

This can be even done for every track....

 

[Meythia]

...Thats like a morning of work for Sophie ?

This can be even done for every track....

It would be, and it would be actually useful to have track specific BoP.

But this is GT7 we are talking about, which means it is meant to be an unfinished and unpolished product hastily made ready for sale to an audience that was expecting the next best AAA racing game console exclusive to PlayStation (I am actually just sad about the state of the game and the way it was treated until now, I still have fun racing, but it is not as much as it could have been).

 

[TT92]

I dont agree on this.
BoP and PP are 2 fundamentally different systems.
PP is an attempt at making an all around measurement system (which was better with gearbox into PP as long as not bugged)
BoP is a predefined setup to average out performance across all cars.

This is literally apples and oranges.

I can understand why you may think this BUT isn't Balance of Performance balancing Performance Points, at least how it is presented in this game? ;-)

In real life we do not have Performance Points assigned to each car so BoP is done quite differently when required, usually adding weight.

How do you suggest PD actually works out the BoP equations then, since you think it is not relevant to the PP system?

I dont see the problem.. PD has Sophie they can simulate car + track dozens of times, thats even better than real-world BoP.

You obviously missed my comment on what a bad idea I think this is ;-) For clarification watch the Nordschleife demo video on how Sophy abuses track limits and physics for that matter.

 

[MatskiMonk]

For context, BoP tables for some real world series that have big fat rule books governing many aspects of the car.

 

[Meythia]

How do you suggest PD actually works out the BoP equations then, since you think it is not relevant to the PP system?

PP with BoP enabled (from the cars I tested)
Just picked highest, lowest and a few in between
Gr.4 cars range from high 604 to 629
Atenza - 604
WRX - 611
GTR - 612
Alfa 155 - 625
Audi TT - 629

Gr3 is 706 to 733
Peugeot VGT - 706
WRX - 714
FT1 - 715
Supra GT500 - 716
M6 - 717
AMG - 726
Huracan - 733

I dont see how you conclude PP would be taken as a factor for BoP, maybe I misunderstand you at this point.
To me it seems pretty far fetched to think it would be factored in, least because PP is using some sort of traction into its calculations whereas BoP is achieved by only changing power and weight.

 

[LGintheNL]

You obviously missed my comment on what a bad idea I think this is ;-) For clarification watch the Nordschleife demo video on how Sophy abuses track limits and physics for that matter.

This doenst matter since you want an equal setting between the different cars. If Sophie abuses the track in a BMW, than she can do it aswell in a Mercedes. To determine a fair BoP you need a constant and in this case Sophie.

So Constant:

• Driver
• Track
• Average reference lap

Now you only need to adjust weight/HP for the cars that are to far off the reference.

 

[TT92]

I dont see how you conclude PP would be taken as a factor for BoP,

Because PD needs a starting point i.e you need a figure to balance. You can either do that with real world lap times or race wins. Since I see no evidence that PD uses any system that would use such a system I conclude that the starting point must be the PP system. So if they start with a flawed system they then end up with a flawed BoP.

The only other explanation I can conjecture is that some other equally flawed BoP system is in use and they are not telling us about that gives us equally skewed results.

So what do you propose as the starting point for a BoP calculation?

This doenst matter since you want an equal setting between the different cars. If Sophie abuses the track in a BMW, than she can do it aswell in a Mercedes. To determine a fair BoP you need a constant and in this case Sophie.

So us poor humans then need to pick the car that has the best curb jumping and grass driving ability :-)) Because then it may not perform as well when driven to true track limits ;-)

 

[Meythia]

So what do you propose as the starting point for a BoP calculation?

It is reasonable to assume the same system from GTSport is applied:

How GT Sport Uses Artificial Intelligence to Calculate Penalties & BoP

Despite all the action going on around us at Monaco, GTPlanet was able to sit down with Gran Turismo series creator Kazunori Yamauchi. We had a few questions derived from queries on the our forums, which you can read about more in future articles. Viewers of the Manufacturer Series final will dou

www.gtplanet.net

"
Polyphony Digital actually uses the AI drivers, in part, to verify the game’s BOP — Balance of Performance — calculations. However, the primary responsibility for this falls on humans.

Just as with the various Sport Mode and FIA race car/track combinations, GT Sport’s BOP comes down to a in-house driver test team.

“We have a few of the top drivers in Gran Turismo throughout the years who’ve joined the company, so they do the final adjustment,” explains Yamauchi. “AI is of course used as a reference, but AIs have certain tracks that they’re good at driving and certain tracks that they’re not good at – or certain corners. So the AI laptimes are used just as a reference.”
"

The starting point is default tunes of each car, because BoP only changes power and weight. On default tunes and by relying on data by all manufacturers and comparing times to actual times driven, you could establish the car does remotely as expected, which means cars of any racing category could basically be setup to only use BoP and dont even have any PP value, but you can still apply a bad PP calculation afterwards.

 

[TT92]

It is reasonable to assume the same system from GTSport is applied:

How GT Sport Uses Artificial Intelligence to Calculate Penalties & BoP

Despite all the action going on around us at Monaco, GTPlanet was able to sit down with Gran Turismo series creator Kazunori Yamauchi. We had a few questions derived from queries on the our forums, which you can read about more in future articles. Viewers of the Manufacturer Series final will dou

www.gtplanet.net

"
Polyphony Digital actually uses the AI drivers, in part, to verify the game’s BOP — Balance of Performance — calculations. However, the primary responsibility for this falls on humans.

Just as with the various Sport Mode and FIA race car/track combinations, GT Sport’s BOP comes down to a in-house driver test team.

“We have a few of the top drivers in Gran Turismo throughout the years who’ve joined the company, so they do the final adjustment,” explains Yamauchi. “AI is of course used as a reference, but AIs have certain tracks that they’re good at driving and certain tracks that they’re not good at – or certain corners. So the AI laptimes are used just as a reference.”
"

The starting point is default tunes of each car, because BoP only changes power and weight. On default tunes and by relying on data by all manufacturers and comparing times to actual times driven, you could establish the car does remotely as expected, which means cars of any racing category could basically be setup to only use BoP and dont even have any PP value, but you can still apply a bad PP calculation afterwards.

Yes, I do recall that article from 4 years ago and I would have hoped that it would still be in use today. Sadly, I don't see how that it is :-(

There seems to be too many glaring BoP miscalculations on standard, un-tuned cars without even considering modified ones.

BTW GTS was no paragon of virtue in deciding BoP either ;-) Do you remember all the GR4 races where FWD cars would just dominate?

Regardless of how BoP is determined today the fact remains that it is flawed. Just like many other aspects in this game which we must all bear in mind, it is a game, not a racing simulator.

Oh one more point I would like to mention here in your quote from PD "..... and by relying on data by all manufacturers". Mmmmmmm....... so what manufacturer data do they have on say a VW Beetle GR3 car or for that matter any vision car? I would suggest that this is just PD pulling random numbers out of their collective rear end and then massaging the figures so they sort of fit into their PP/BoP system ;-)

Anyway, update 1.19 is currently downloading so we will see what happens now. I am expecting a lot of my tunes to be BoPed to uselessness ;-)

 

[Meythia]

so what manufacturer data do they have on say a VW Beetle GR3 car or for that matter any vision car?

For VGT cars, the manufacturers are providing fictional data. This is not PD creating a car and putting a badge on it. All the work is done by the manufacturers and then simply transfered to PD to be imported into the game. Just as with every other car that actually exists.
This is way more simple than PD having someone staying in contact with any brand representative to inquire "what is the power curve of the non-existing Gr.3 Beetle?"

 

[TT92]

For VGT cars, the manufacturers are providing fictional data. This is not PD creating a car and putting a badge on it. All the work is done by the manufacturers and then simply transfered to PD to be imported into the game. Just as with every other car that actually exists.
This is way more simple than PD having someone staying in contact with any brand representative to inquire "what is the power curve of the non-existing Gr.3 Beetle?"

Genuine question: Are you sure about this? What is stopping VW from providing Veyron engine data for their GR3 Beetle just so it looks good against an Audi or Porsche? Surely PD must do some sort of BoP?

I see no issue with genuine GT3 or GT4 cars as its already available and accompanied by genuine lap times. For that matter even F1.

Then, there's the question on fuel consumption. We do not know what size the Beetle GR3 car's engine is, little alone the configuration, only that it is a turbo. So how on earth does anyone guess at fuel usage on a fictitious car with and unknow engine?

All of this only convinces me even more that the whole system is flawed at best and rigged if you believe in biases ;-)

 

[NevilleNobody]

BOP and PP are totally different discussions. In regards to Slophy, I don't think it works to test for BOP because there's no accounting for the difficulty in getting the car to behave. Many of the MR cars are potentially very fast but even aliens are not going to wrestle with the entry oversteer if they can push a more stable car to within a 10th or two of the MR times.

Then there's the whole lap time vs straight line speed thing too, many of the tracks are really fast and power is king. Someone above suggested Catalunya but it favours handling over all else.

 

[Meythia]

hat is stopping VW from providing Veyron engine data for their GR3 Beetle just so it looks good against an Audi or Porsche?

Why would VW provide engine data to a cheap car to outclass cars of its own brand that bring a much higher margin of profit?
They already have cancelled Nardo W12 because of Chiron, because why would VW need any kind of power car (though I really liked it back then, Bugatti looks ugly).

Why is there a Tomahawk in this game, what does Dodge expect to gain by creating this kind of VGT car, or in case PD would have created it, why would they attribute it to Dodge instead of "Gran Turismo"?

The simple answer is: there is no merit to providing false data for any kind of reputational gain, "Win on Sunday, profit on Monday" isnt a slogan that has carried over for a long time now.
"dad drove it" has a greater weight into how a person is deciding to make his first car purchase, or "dad bought it".

 

[TT92]

Why would VW provide engine data to a cheap car to outclass cars of its own brand that bring a much higher margin of profit?
They already have cancelled Nardo W12 because of Chiron, because why would VW need any kind of power car (though I really liked it back then, Bugatti looks ugly).

Why is there a Tomahawk in this game, what does Dodge expect to gain by creating this kind of VGT car, or in case PD would have created it, why would they attribute it to Dodge instead of "Gran Turismo"?

The simple answer is: there is no merit to providing false data for any kind of reputational gain, "Win on Sunday, profit on Monday" isnt a slogan that has carried over for a long time now.
"dad drove it" has a greater weight into how a person is deciding to make his first car purchase, or "dad bought it".

I just did a small exercise in how skewed the BoP system currently is. In the current GR3 Race C in the top 500 places there are 3 (yes 3) non GR Supra cars. The first one does not appear until about 225. BTW 2 Vettes and a GT 40 test car.

It will be interesting now that there are 3 BoP settings for cars in 1.19 update.

On a side note, I personally hate every imaginary, made up, non-real car in the GT games and would love to see them all taken out. Or at very least disallowed to compete with real cars.

 

[ketiux]

by giving the Toyota Supra Concept a higher Top Speed than any other car and the ability to accelerate to it faster than the other cars get to their own top speed……. Most cars top out at Monza at around 170 but don’t reach it until you hit the Turn. The Supra reaches at least 175 well before the corner. It’s less so the Top Speed more the acceleration that kills other cars racing it.

so much for a fair and balanced lobby unless everyone races them

I just tested this.

For context, I was using the NSX in Sport mode and max speed at Monza was ~276 kph before first chicane. After 1.19, NSX now does 278 kph before the first chicane while the Supra remains unchanged in speed. Best time I had with the NSX was 1:39.5xx and I just did a 1:38.8xx as a result. Before this update, NSX was clearly over 1.3 seconds slower at the very least. PD did a little adjustment on the cars.