Ride Height Glitch Returns in GT6

[Motor City Hami]

My good friend and fellow tuner @praiano63 alerted me that the ride height glitch has returned to GT6. If @praiano63 says anything about tuning, I listen... then I test. I have only spent two hours playing with the ride height glitch, but I expect to do much, much more in the next couple of weeks and will post results, lap times and videos.

Ride Height Glitch Defined:
High front/low rear increases turning ability/oversteer and reduces understeer.

In my short time testing, ride height numbers like 90/80 do not produce very noticeable results. A wider split like 125/80 or 140/60 are needed to see the full effects. I really hate that PD has made this return after blocking it in GT5. It puts into question their ability to program real world physics.

I know that this thread has the potential to turn into a back and forth argument about backward settings. In my opinion, the explanation is not relevant. Does this glitch work to increase oversteer/reduce understeer and produce lower lap times or not? That is my challenge to the tuning community. Yes or no. Does this glitch do what I typed above or not?

Now, having been around the forums for as long as I have, I know that the discussion and debate will happen right along side the true test results so I thought I would provide two explanations as to the possible whys. This way when the argument gets out of hand, you can copy/paste these or direct people to them. If someone else comes up with another logical conclusion, I will add it here in the OP.

Ride Height is Backward - PD made a programming error, a typo. Why don't they just get the intern to fix this in the next update. This was not worth my $60 bucks. Rinse and repeat.

Ride Height mimics real world - This is a stretch, but I can come up with one condition where this is close to a real world situation. I may need to build a video to show this using a remote controlled car, but hang with me. The in-game description says that when you lower ride height, you also shorten shock travel. So imagine a car with very long front shocks and very short rear shocks. As the car leans into the corner, the inside rear wheel will eventually reach a point with a short shock where it lifts off of the tarmac, thus leaving only one rear tire with grip. The opposite happens with a long front shock where the inside front wheel is allowed to keep a strong level of grip even with lots of weight transfer.

So, there is a real world condition that can be described, but the thing that I hate about the current programming is that the ride height glitch now becomes the "super tune" that overrides every other tuning adjustment. It is simply too strong.

Thoughts?
Tests?
Opposing views?

Let's discuss.

Test Results
donpost
donpost #2
Otaliema
Motor City Hamilton

 

[DolHaus]

This has always confused me, my thoughts on the matter are based on my (vague) understanding of real life physics that should mean that the higher end of the car should be more susceptible to inertia due to the added leverage.
Basically when the car turns the weight is transferred up and to the outside (body roll), the higher end of the car should exert more force due to the increased leverage and therefore having the rear higher than the front should lead to increased rotation/oversteer.
(I am aware that this is a game and real life doesn't always apply exactly, but to be completely opposite to conventional thinking seems a little odd)
Based on what I have seen though, the opposite is true, a higher rear end adds understeer defying my understanding of how the forces should be acting.
I may be totally wrong in my way of thinking, I'm not a physicist or anything but I did train as an engineer so its not entirely based on guess work.

Thanks for putting this thread up mate, I'm very interested in how this turns out

 

[killerjimbag]

I'm done with this game. I have backed PD through thick and thin but enough is enough. On to playing my PS4.

 

[donpost]

Not at my PS3 right now so can't test, but my personal view is that it should work like this:

The "A" section represents setting the ride height so low that you hit the bump stops causing a loss in grip. The "B" section represents the loss of grip caused by the extra weight transfer brought about by an increased ride height -> higher CoG.

This next bit is entirely speculation based on my limited experience so far. I THINK that MAYBE the default settings we are getting for ride height from the game are in the "A" section. This would explain why increasing the front ride height brings appears to add grip to the front (in the example of @praiano63 's MX5 tune). My reason for thinking this is that to get the fastest lap times on a reasonably bumpy track like Nurburgring GP I have had good results increasing both the front and rear ride height to maximum. This is far from a concrete theory tho so take with a pinch of salt!

Ride Height mimics real world - This is a stretch, but I can come up with one condition where this is close to a real world situation. I may need to build a video to show this using a remote controlled car, but hang with me. The in-game description says that when you lower ride height, you also shorten shock travel. So imagine a car with very long front shocks and very short rear shocks. As the car leans into the corner, the inside rear wheel will eventually reach a point with a short shock where it lifts off of the tarmac, thus leaving only one rear tire with grip. The opposite happens with a long front shock where the inside front wheel is allowed to keep a strong level of grip even with lots of weight transfer.

This is definitely a factor when the spring is in compression. But I don't think a lower ride height will shorten the spring travel in extension because if you think about it why would ride height affect how far the wheel can droop down? Unless maybe PD got lazy and just programmed low ride height to decrease total travel in both directions? Then the negatives of running low ride height with soft springs would be doubled.

@DolHaus That's my understanding too - correlating to the "B" section on my graph.

I think we have a lot of testing in front of us

 

[Mirado_7]

Interesting, I had convinced myself it was a ballast bug...

I've convinced myself I'm not crazy, I think. The league I run this car in requires an 80kg ballast in it, and I've always had it all the way in the rear. I was messing around with the LSD, downforce, and ballast trying to figure out what was going on.
So, when I put the ballast in the center of the car it magically returned to the same handling I had before the patch. Others in the league have always kept theirs in the middle, and noticed no changes with the update.

Has anyone else noticed anything different with the ballast?

I will have to test this out when I get home tonight.

 

[DolHaus]

Not at my PS3 right now so can't test, but my personal view is that it should work like this:

The "A" section represents setting the ride height so low that you hit the bump stops causing a loss in grip. The "B" section represents the loss of grip caused by the extra weight transfer brought about by an increased ride height -> higher CoG.

This next bit is entirely speculation based on my limited experience so far. I THINK that MAYBE the default settings we are getting for ride height from the game are in the "A" section. This would explain why increasing the front ride height brings appears to add grip to the front (in the example of @praiano63 's MX5 tune). My reason for thinking this is that to get the fastest lap times on a reasonably bumpy track like Nurburgring GP I have had good results increasing both the front and rear ride height to maximum. This is far from a concrete theory tho so take with a pinch of salt!



This is definitely a factor when the spring is in compression. But I don't think a lower ride height will shorten the spring travel in extension because if you think about it why would ride height affect how far the wheel can droop down? Unless maybe PD got lazy and just programmed low ride height to decrease total travel in both directions? Then the negatives of running low ride height with soft springs would be doubled.

@DolHaus That's my understanding too - correlating to the "B" section on my graph.

I think we have a lot of testing in front of us

I agree with their form of spring modelling (lower ride height = less spring travel), that makes sense with my experience of traditional coil overs where you adjust the screw at the bottom of the spring to compress the spring and lower the ride height. I don't think it is bottoming out that is causing the effect though, the cars I've tested are showing none of usual the symptoms associated with hitting the bump stop, they seem to remain consistent and smooth rather than jerky. I think that is what you are saying at least, I may have read it wrong

 

[rams1de]

There should be a disclaimer on the loading screen, "Any similarities between real world tuning settings and GT6 tuning settings is purely coincidental ...."

I've been using 'reversed ride height' since the game's release. Imo, higher ride height gives more grip. Doubt it's much more complicated that. Using it improved my times noticeably in the MiTo, Lanca and Scirocco seasonals.

When I ran through the settings to understand their effect, I could feel the difference with as little as 20mm rake in some cases so I don't subscribe to the bottoming out theory.

 

[esoxhntr]

I'm not really adding anything valuable to the discussion but,

GT6 = GT5 SPEC 3 -- new Menus, altered physics, etc but same underlying issues (reused core code).

Instead of the latter generating precisely zero revenue, the former has brought in millions -- I'm not really complaining about that btw.

My complaint is about them adding lipstick to the pig instead of turning the pig into something less bovine.

 

[donpost]

I agree with their form of spring modelling (lower ride height = less spring travel), that makes sense with my experience of traditional coil overs where you adjust the screw at the bottom of the spring to compress the spring and lower the ride height. I don't think it is bottoming out that is causing the effect though, the cars I've tested are showing none of usual the symptoms associated with hitting the bump stop, they seem to remain consistent and smooth rather than jerky. I think that is what you are saying at least, I may have read it wrong

No you've understood correctly and debunked that particular theory too! Back to the drawing board....

 

[rickykaka3]

I'm glad that i stopped playing this game, AC IV BlackFlag is awesome!!!

 

[DolHaus]

No you've understood correctly and debunked that particular theory too! Back to the drawing board....

It was worth a shot, I can see the thinking behind it and it does make sense to an extent but I don't think its the cause of the symptoms in this particular case.

I love the new game, its different to 5 and a lot more in depth tuning and physics wise but a few of these little glitches make it hard to actually think through the process in a logical sense. I would love to hear a real life suspension gurus take on it, maybe that's just the way it is in real life and we just don't fully understand the situation and forces at play. Someone get on the phone to Ross Brawn (Braun?), I've got some question to ask him lol

 

[DigitalBaka]

Not at my PS3 right now so can't test, but my personal view is that it should work like this:

The "A" section represents setting the ride height so low that you hit the bump stops causing a loss in grip. The "B" section represents the loss of grip caused by the extra weight transfer brought about by an increased ride height -> higher CoG.

This next bit is entirely speculation based on my limited experience so far. I THINK that MAYBE the default settings we are getting for ride height from the game are in the "A" section. This would explain why increasing the front ride height brings appears to add grip to the front (in the example of @praiano63 's MX5 tune). My reason for thinking this is that to get the fastest lap times on a reasonably bumpy track like Nurburgring GP I have had good results increasing both the front and rear ride height to maximum. This is far from a concrete theory tho so take with a pinch of salt!



This is definitely a factor when the spring is in compression. But I don't think a lower ride height will shorten the spring travel in extension because if you think about it why would ride height affect how far the wheel can droop down? Unless maybe PD got lazy and just programmed low ride height to decrease total travel in both directions? Then the negatives of running low ride height with soft springs would be doubled.

@DolHaus That's my understanding too - correlating to the "B" section on my graph.

I think we have a lot of testing in front of us

Interesting theory. The problem I have with it, without having done any testing and simply going off what @praiano63 and @Motor City Hami have done, is:

If, as you say, default is in the "A" range and increasing it adds grip to a point then it should also fall off after that point. Looking at the settings given as an example (140/70) it seems that it does not. As I recall, in GT5 going max/min was the way to go if you were an alien and could handle the rotation. Normal folk could use something more moderate, but the point remained.

What is possible if this is, in fact, the way it works is that the A side falls off faster than the B side, giving us something more like this:

This might explain why front max, rear min will cause oversteer. In the reading I've done from folks who know better than I do, actual experience/expectation would mirror this, flipping the quick fall off to the B side.

EDIT: Also, bovine is cows, not pigs...but I agree with the sentiment. :tup:

 

[killerjimbag]

Can you imagine if they actually fix this? All the tuning we have done will be what? I have spent way too many hours on this game to have too start over.

 

[DolHaus]

Can you imagine if they actually fix this? All the tuning we have done will be what? I have spent way too many hours on this game to have too start over.

It would only affect the tunes that exploit the glitch (massive difference between F/R ride height), if your tunes are at fairly normal ride height then the effects would be minimal if any at all

 

[donpost]

Interesting theory. The problem I have with it, without having done any testing and simply going off what @praiano63 and @Motor City Hami have done, is:

If, as you say, default is in the "A" range and increasing it adds grip to a point then it should also fall off after that point. Looking at the settings given as an example (140/70) it seems that it does not. As I recall, in GT5 going max/min was the way to go if you were an alien and could handle the rotation. Normal folk could use something more moderate, but the point remained.

What is possible if this is, in fact, the way it works is that the A side falls off faster than the B side, giving us something more like this:
View attachment 127148

This might explain why front max, rear min will cause oversteer. In the reading I've done from folks who know better than I do, actual experience/expectation would mirror this, flipping the quick fall off to the B side.

EDIT: Also, bovine is cows, not pigs...but I agree with the sentiment. :tup:

Ah yes that's probably right - hitting the bump stops/running out of travel is worse than having a little bit of extra weight transfer.

What I was suggesting was that maybe the game restricts us mostly to the "A" section of the curve like this:

BUT as @DolHaus has pointed out that would mean you would see a lot more indications of running out of travel such as "jerky" cornering, and we don't see that. To be honest I have fists of ham so I can only "feel" the effects of running out of travel when they are REALLY apparent!

 

[Ix-M0NTANA-xI]

Tuning is the one thing that should be constant in a game like this. They have never been able to figure it out. Its the main thing i have hated about the last 2 games. Spending months getting your car dialed in and then they change the physics model. eg.tire wear. BS!!

Sick of feeling like im getting ripped off by PD. This game should have been a $20 add on to GT5 not a $60 dollar rip off to the loyal customers.

They cant even keep their word when it comes to updates and content which was advertised prior to game release is still MIA.

I havent played in over a month because im sick of constantly having to retune my cars when i have them dialed in amazing.

Fire KAZ! Get someone in there that doesnt BS us.

 

[killerjimbag]

It would only affect the tunes that exploit the glitch (massive difference between F/R ride height), if your tunes are at fairly normal ride height then the effects would be minimal if any at all

Your assuming that this is not a broken game? Look, when you get one of the best tuners leaving to play something else, I need not say more. If this was Toyota or GM there would be a recall.

 

[shaunm80]

Tuning is the one thing that should be constant in a game like this. They have never been able to figure it out. Its the main thing i have hated about the last 2 games. Spending months getting your car dialed in and then they change the physics model. eg.tire wear. BS!!

Sick of feeling like im getting ripped off by PD. This game should have been a $20 add on to GT5 not a $60 dollar rip off to the loyal customers.

They cant even keep their word when it comes to updates and content which was advertised prior to game release is still MIA.

I havent played in over a month because im sick of constantly having to retune my cars when i have them dialed in amazing.

Fire KAZ! Get someone in there that doesnt BS us.

Firing Kaz is a little harsh... I think we have to remember that most new games released have had glitches at the start. No matter how much testing is done prior to release, updating a game (like GT6 has been since day 1 of being released) will have some unknown effect elsewhere until the game reaches a certain development point.

I agree that this game has been glitchy and I am yet to test this ride height glitch but I will be doing so at some point in the next few days. Maybe I am missing something here but don't most software developers have some way of reporting issues directly so they can amend any errors?

On another note, but vaguely related to this, the glitch with the money cheat that appeared in 1.01 was fairly quickly sorted out when PD realised that people were exploiting that. They may do the same with the ride height glitch fairly soon to rectify this situation.

The whole gaming model has changed these days. Software developers spend a lot of money developing a game and unfortunately, the only way to make money back is by having a constant money stream coming in. not just a one off payment whilst they are hosting servers (for free) for users to enjoy (or not depending on how you feel about the online racing).

In the new model, it is not in a developers interest to release a "complete game" from day one. Unfortunate but true for anything released these days.

 

[killerjimbag]

DolHaus, if I go into a online lobby running what I think is normal/real settings and someone else is running the ride height glitch, then you might as well park the car and watch him/her drive away. I don't want to be put at a disadvantage because someone cannot make or code a game as advertised.Call it what you want, but it's not in any way, shape, or form what was sold to you or me

 

[DolHaus]

Your assuming that this is not a broken game? Look, when you get one of the best tuners leaving to play something else, I need not say more. If this was Toyota or GM there would be a recall.

I'm not assuming anything, the games not broken. There are a few errors here and there and its not the greatest GT game there has ever been but I would hardly describe it as broken.
Who left the game to play something else?
Why are you directing this at me anyway? All I said was that if they fixed the ride height issue then it would only affect cars that exploit it, the tunes that use more normal ride height would stay the same as it was or simply require switching the f/r settings

 

[killerjimbag]

The game is not broken? A few errors?
This was supposed to be better than GT5 , is it? Praiano has moved to AC because of the same issues you say are not broken.Look on the back of the box and tell me what was advertised is actually in the game. I shouldn't have to switch or revert back anything that was supposed to be there when I purchased this or let's someone exploit their failure to code a game.

 

[DolHaus]

The game is not broken? A few errors?
This was supposed to be better than GT5 , is it? Praiano has moved to AC because of the same issues you say are not broken.Look on the back of the box and tell me what was advertised is actually in the game. I shouldn't have to switch or revert back anything that was supposed to be there when I purchased this or let's someone exploit their failure to code a game.

I'm not even arguing with you any more man, get over it.
This is a discussion about an aspect of suspension physics so we can find solutions to our tuning problems, there are plenty of other places to complain about what you think is wrong with the game. If you have nothing constructive to add then take it elsewhere, frankly I'm sick of hearing it.

 

[killerjimbag]

Whoa there big fella! I posted something and you replied,so when I have rebuttal,you don't like it? Here, go to this link and tell me the countless hours that these 2 companies put into the development of this game are actually here.
Right off of PD's own site.
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/products/gt6/technology/

 

[JLG_GT]

@Motor City Hami
Had to have known this was going to happen its only been 4 or 5 posts.

@DolHaus
And all he has brought to this debate is...

Your assuming that this is not a broken game? Look, when you get one of the best tuners leaving to play something else, I need not say more. If this was Toyota or GM there would be a recall.

DolHaus, if I go into a online lobby running what I think is normal/real settings and someone else is running the ride height glitch, then you might as well park the car and watch him/her drive away. I don't want to be put at a disadvantage because someone cannot make or code a game as advertised.Call it what you want, but it's not in any way, shape, or form what was sold to you or me

The game is not broken? A few errors?
This was supposed to be better than GT5 , is it? Praiano has moved to AC because of the same issues you say are not broken.Look on the back of the box and tell me what was advertised is actually in the game. I shouldn't have to switch or revert back anything that was supposed to be there when I purchased this or let's someone exploit their failure to code a game.

And this to do with what exactly?
It happens all the time, once again was interested in some insight instead of reading this crap.

 

[Motor City Hami]

@Motor City Hami
Had to have known this was going to happen its only been 4 or 5 posts.

It's o.k. This is one of those heated topics and @killerjimbag has a right to his thoughts and opinions about the game.

I am hoping that @praiano63, myself and others are willing to post some test data or video. I am disappointed with GT6 too, but am not ready to throw out the PS3 yet. I look at it like this. If we know what each tuning lever does and we expose it to the GTPlanet community, then it levels the playing field a bit and makes the game more fun.

 

[rams1de]

PD couldn't fix the ride height issue in three years of GT5, so what chance we'll see a remedy with the obvious back log they have right now?

Best thing they could do is alter the in-game description to make it accurate.

 

[JLG_GT]

O.k. That totally contradicts your OP. But I wont stoop to this level...good luck with the ride heights.

Me and MCH handled this respecfully. I wasnt upset at him just the situation.

 

[killerjimbag]

When 2 respected tuners contributors from GT5 and GT6 in Praiano and Hami post something is broken/glitched I usually take note. When one moves onto another game and another says it was not worth his $60 I also take a pretty keen interest.

 

[Doodle]

The ride height glitch has been around since day one and I simply don't care. I will use whatever is fastest, no matter how ridiculous it is.

 

[Motor City Hami]

O.k. That totally contradicts your OP. But I wont stoop to this level...good luck with the ride heights.

I don't believe that I said anything in the OP about shutting others down if they share an opinion. I just don't plan on getting in any fights over the issue. I'll test and tell the community what I find and let people find their own conclusions about how to play or if they choose to move on to another game.

When 2 respected tuners contributors from GT5 and GT6 in Praiano and Hami post something is broken/glitched I usually take note. When one moves onto another game and another says it was not worth his $60 I also take a pretty keen interest.

Hmmmm... Stotty and CSLACR?