GT5 Quick Tune: ***VERSION 3.1***

oppositelock

oppositelock

864
United States
NorCal
oppositelock27
6688609127_9b0867d8f2_z.jpg



***VERSION 3.1*** http://www.mediafire.com/?b0s7d7t491mk87v

(Old) Version 3.0: http://www.mediafire.com/?3vook7e18f3wq6i

(Old) Version 2.0: http://www.mediafire.com/?kp2tri29iji9zer

(Old) Version 1.1: http://www.mediafire.com/?mjpnlm61q299901

Full GT5 Gear Ratio Spreadsheet: http://www.mediafire.com/?9q5p8gac4ndpdlh


If you're having problems opening it try downloading OpenOffice here: http://www.openoffice.org/


***UPDATE FEBRUARY 26, 2012***

RABBIDMAGGOTT has offered to share 232 448 544 582 tunes created with Quick Tune! They are packed into four zip files a single zip file and the files are named according to vehicle. I think this will save you guys a lot of time. If you find them useful please be sure to thank him for his efforts. :bowdown:

http://www.mediafire.com/?bp5q98i99le8twb


6753282217_1f60d26ba4_z.jpg



How it works:

The Vehicle Specifications and Suspension Parameters fields should be pretty self-explanatory. You can find the front weight distribution in the ballast adjustment screen. Default spring rate refers to the default springs for the fully adjustable suspension kit.

Suspension Level provides for four levels of stiffness. Increasing this value will lower the car and raise the spring rates, dampers, and anti-roll bars in unison. Generally speaking:

Level 1: Street cars on comfort tires
Level 2: Street cars on sports tires
Level 3: Street cars on race tires
Level 4: Race cars on race tires

Update 10/28/11: Recently I've been using level 3 on all cars with sports tires and level 4 on all cars on race tires. I'm not sure the above advice is truly a good guide anymore, you should experiment to find what works best for you. Continuing:

This is a rough guide, however. A Veyron will require a higher level than an Elise on the same tires. The cool part about this is that you can mix and match settings from different levels. For example, I like to sometimes use level 4 dampers on a level 3 setup. You want to use level 4 springs on level 2 dampers with level 3 anti-roll bars? It might work, it might not, doesn't hurt to try. Default setting: 3

Balance Fine Tune is for making small adjustments to the handling characteristics. Entering a positive number results in more oversteer and entering a negative results in more understeer. Each tick of this box slightly alters the ride height, spring rates, camber, toe, LSD, AWD torque split and aerodynamics if applicable. Range is from -3 to +3. Default setting: 0

Base Camber Angle is used to increase or decrease the front and rear camber angles. A heavy car with soft suspension and sticky tires will need more camber than a light car with stiff suspension and hard tires. This is really trial-and-error, here. I suggest keeping it between 1.0 and 3.0. Default setting: 2.0

LSD Strength provides for four levels of LSD lock. This is another trial-and-error type deal. Range is from 1 to 4. Default setting: 2

Brake Bias works similar to the Balance Fine Tune. Entering a positive number moves the balance rearward, entering a negative number it moves it forward. This feature is intended to be used with ABS on, if you drive with ABS off I suggest setting brake bias manually. Range is from -3 to +3. Default setting: 0

Due to the recent debates about "backwards" settings I've decided to include the Invert F/R Roll Resistance feature for those who subscribe to this theory. This feature has two effects. First, it flips the swaybar output. Second, it reverses the effect of the Balance Fine Tune on spring rates. Note that this will not effect the spring rates if the Balance Fine Tune is at 0 as they will still be extrapolated from the defaults. Enter "N" for normal or "Y" for reversed. Default setting: N

The transmission Spread feature allows you to move the transmission gear ratios closer together or further apart. Entering a value less than 100% will result in closer ratios and entering a value greater than 100% will result in wider ratios. If you're having trouble fitting the suggested ratios into the allowable range this feature can be used to correct this. Default setting: 100%

The transmission Scale feature multiples all gears by the same amount without altering the spread. The effect is similar to changing the final drive. Entering a value less than 100% will result in taller (numerically lower) ratios and entering a value greater than 100% will result in shorter (numerically higher) ratios. This is also useful for fitting the ratios into the allowable range. Default setting: 100%

For a complete step-by-step demonstration on fitting gear ratios and selecting a final drive, please jump to the following post:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=5889327#post5889327

At this time the Aerodynamics feature only works for race or tuner vehicles with adjustable front downforce. It does not work on road cars with the GT Auto aero kit. Sorry. If I find a way to make it work for road cars I will try to integrate it into a future version.


6713056499_9ca8d42714_z.jpg



Some preemptive answers to some possible questions:

Q: Why aren't the spring rates based on weight distribution?

A: Weight distribution can't be used to calculate spring rates without knowing the motion ratio of the vehicle suspension. For example, the BMW M3 uses a strut type front suspension and multilink rear. Struts have a motion ratio of 1:1 but a multilink motion ratio can vary wildly depending on how where the shock/spring assembly mounts to the control arm. Since the M3 has 50:50 weight distribution we might be tempted to use spring rates of 10.0/10.0, but this would be wrong. If the rear motion ratio is 0.7:1 this would be equivalent to a 10.0/7.0 setup, which would result in understeer. If the rear motion ratio is 0.5:1 this would be a 10.0/5.0 setup! It's for this reason that the M3 uses higher spring rates in the rear. In this situation the only thing we can do is assume somebody at PD did their homework properly and extrapolate from the settings they give us.

Q: Was this created with a controller or wheel?

A: This was created with a combination of DS3 and HKS controllers. I imagine wheel users might find the initial settings be a bit on the "safe" side. I hope the adjustments provided will allow this to work for wheel users as well. If not, I would hope they have suggestions for improvement.

Q: Is this good for drift, drag, or rally settings?

A: Maybe. I don't know. Probably not.

Q: I used this on X car and it was 0.287 seconds slower on the Nur. This is stupid. Your stupid and your breath stinks. I am the best tuner.

A: I'm sure you're correct on all counts.


6699148293_f79966cfb5_z.jpg



Thats it for now. If you choose to post a tune created either partially or entirely with this sheet I only ask that you give credit and hopefully post a link to this thread.

Happy motoring.


____________________________
 
Last edited:
looks cool, can't wait to try it. I understand everything but the numbers in the blue box. Am I supposed to change those at all based on each individual car?
 
Riggins
looks cool, can't wait to try it. I understand everything but the numbers in the blue box. Am I supposed to change those at all based on each individual car?
Click to expand...

Yes, those are just an example to show you what it's supposed to look like. Replace those with the values from the car you're tuning.
 
What exactly are you looking for in the "Base Camber Angle" Box. Is this the base we want, or the base the car comes with, if any?
 
Just made a donwload of it, will examine it later.

Apparently, it is protected by a keyword, which makes it impossible to open it in Excel for Mac in Europe (that's what my MacOffice says, strange!). But open office opens it without any problems.
 
turbogeit
Apparently, it is protected by a keyword, which makes it impossible to open it in Excel for Mac in Europe (that's what my MacOffice says, strange!). But open office opens it without any problems.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. I originally wasn't going to password protect it but somebody in another thread mentioned making a smartphone app and selling it for money, so I thought it best to hide my formulas. If it causes widespread issues I'll release an unprotected version.
 
Some vehicles have differing ranges of ride height adjustment front to rear... Ex: EvoX, where rear ride height only goes down to -20 yet front goes to -25. Would it be possible to add yet another variable?

I'm going to be testing this to see how it works out, will report findings. If it's good at what it does I might be out of a job though. :scared:


Edit: Started testing. Using the prem Infiniti G35 Coupe, a vehicle I know to understeer rather horribly. Track is Trial Mountain.

Test 1 was using a "fine-tune" setting of 0, which is to say the most understeery (in theory). The result was a 1:32.899 with copious amounts of understeer, as expected. I set toe to 0.00/0.00 though, as I know the recommended value of 0.00/+1.00 will just create more understeer.

I did use suspension level 3 even though the car in question is on sports rubber; it may be somewhat on the stiff side for some, but I find the spring rates far from excessive. "Base camber" was at 1.5, LSD strength at 3. Ignored the brake bias for now.

Test 2... Fine-tune of 5, which should, by all rights, neutralize the car right? Well... It did, kinda. 1:32.549, car actually seems to be slightly worse on entry but makes up for it on exit.

Test 3... Fine-tune of 7. 1:32.360, it's starting to push more under braking but loosen up on-center to allow for a better exit line... But said better exit line is being dampened quite a bit by understeer. Push-neutral-push.

Test 4... Fine-tune of 10. 1:32.432. It honestly felt a bit better in terms of response but the pace simply wasn't available for comment. Also of note, some damper adjustment is now needed as the car is being a bit bouncy.

And finally, the "I used this on X car and it was 0.287 seconds slower on the Nur. This is stupid. Your stupid and your breath stinks. I am the best tuner." section.

My baseline tune which actually looks as though it should be more understeery than the "fine tune 0" setup from the calculator was bloody deadly. I kept your camber angles and ride height (to be a bit more fair), kept the brake balance I used all the way through testing (5/8), kept the same toe as the rest of testing (nothing at either end) and your LSD 3. Went 1:32.4 repeatedly, then a 1:32.074. For reference, the other runs all involved a 1:33+ lap or three before their best times. For reference, the dampers were 9 rebound, 6 bound front and rear, 11.5/6.2 springs, 6/2 sways.

So I used this on an Infiniti G35 and it was 0.286 seconds slower on the Mountain. This is stupid. Your stupid and your breath stinks. I am the best tuner. :rolleyes:

But on a more serious note, good work here. It works well for getting some initial improvement though it's limited a bit in what it will tell you to do, and I know of some cases where, if it weren't for the toe changes, the most understeery setup would actually oversteer the most.
 
Last edited:
Rotary Junkie
Some vehicles have differing ranges of ride height adjustment front to rear... Ex: EvoX, where rear ride height only goes down to -20 yet front goes to -25. Would it be possible to add yet another variable?
Click to expand...

Good suggestion. I'll try to incorperate it in a future version. For now you'll just have to input the front and rear seperately.
 
oppositelock
Good suggestion. I'll try to incorperate it in a future version. For now you'll just have to input the front and rear seperately.
Click to expand...

As in use the front height range, set front ride height, then use rear height range, set rear?

Not entirely sure if that would actually work better or worse; it'd definitely cause differing f/r ride height adjustments, but the question is whether that actually results in an improvement.

Also, look up. Did a bit of testing. ;)
 
Good info, that helps. Just a couple questions:

Did you try using the swaybars to balance the car before using the fine tune as suggested? I don't really expect this setting to fix terminal understeer by itself. It's not quite clear but it also looks like you might have run 0/0 toe in all cases, in which case all it's left doing is very small spring adjustments. It's also possible the softer front springs at the higher setting are causing less front grip instead of more grip. I'll have to do some more testing.

Did you try a lower LSD setting than 3? Personally I rarely use higher than 2, and quite often 1. This could be causing some of the understeer.

Edit: Come to think of it, I could probably create intermediate LSD settings between 1 and 2 and between 2 and 3, upping the adjustment levels to 5.

It's quite strange that your setup is more neutral with the extreme front/rear varience. Maybe the extra body roll in rear is causing the back end to swing around. More testing required.

Also, wheel or controller?

Thanks for your help. I hope you don't get fed up with it too soon. Please keep messing with it and posting results. 👍
 
Last edited:
Rotary Junkie
As in use the front height range, set front ride height, then use rear height range, set rear?

Not entirely sure if that would actually work better or worse; it'd definitely cause differing f/r ride height adjustments, but the question is whether that actually results in an improvement.
Click to expand...

Honestly, you're talking a difference of 2 to 4 mm. I don't think it really matters. Personally I'd enter the front range, set the front, then enter the rear range and set the rear. Not that it really matters.
 
Last edited:
oppositelock
Good info, that helps. Just a couple questions:

Did you try using the swaybars to balance the car before using the fine tune as suggested? I don't really expect this setting to fix terminal understeer by itself. It's not quite clear but it also looks like you might have run 0/0 toe in all cases, in which case all it's left doing is very small spring adjustments. It's also possible the softer front springs at the higher setting are causing less front grip instead of more grip. I'll have to do some more testing.
Click to expand...

Yep. Left toe at 0/0 as all more positive toe at the rear will do is exaggerate the understeer. Didn't mess with anti-roll (left it at the suggested 4/4); personally I believe the sheet could be set up to also change the sways anyway.

And it only doing small spring adjustments is precisely why I don't like it; the dampers are critical for entry and exit behavior when tuned correctly, sways are mostly a trim thing. Same for toe, I don't feel it should be so exaggerated (+1.00 rear toe will both chew tires and keep the car from rotating until it snaps... Which it will do earlier).

oppositelock
Did you try a lower LSD setting than 3? Personally I rarely use higher than 2, and quite often 1. This could be causing some of the understeer.
Click to expand...

No, I did not. Changing the diff at this stage would help entry somewhat by letting the car rotate, but it wouldn't fix the underlying issue of the suspension; weaker initial and accel would help part-throttle understeer but the car is reasonably neutral on exit as-is and the higher accel will put more of the power down any time there is a wheel speed difference.

oppositelock
Edit: Come to think of it, I could probably create intermediate LSD settings between 1 and 2 and between 2 and 3, upping the adjustment levels to 5.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it could be a good idea but it's also still perhaps a bit over-simplified. Then again, that's the point.

oppositelock
It's quite strange that your setup is more neutral with the extreme front/rear varience. Maybe the extra body roll in rear is causing the back end to swing around. More testing required.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be the rear roll causing the car to push less; if it was even more extreme this may be the case but not as it is. The problem here is excessive amounts of stress on the front tires; getting weight off the fronts during cornering is key to getting a front-heavy car to turn.

oppositelock
Also, wheel or controller?
Click to expand...

Wheel.

oppositelock
Thanks for your help. I hope you don't get fed up with it too soon. Please keep messing with it and posting results. 👍
Click to expand...

Yeah I'll likely continue to mess with it but it may be a few days before I do too much more.
 
Ah, well. For ***** and giggles I bought a G35C and tried your tune against a 4/10/2.0/1/5 setup with an extra click on the rear sway. I didn't find yours an improvement, so I guess we're even.
 
Ah, running a rear wing myself. Still need to work on it a bit though, baseline tune is just that... A bunch of numbers I figured would work.
 
I just had a lightbulb go off in my head. You know why the tuner doesn't work with this POS? Because it doesn't drive anything like an FR. You know what it drives like? A GT-R, but worse. No wheelspin, no throttle steering, nothing. Just power-on understeer. Tomorrow I'm going to try using the FAWD column as the baseline. I'll make this piece of crap turn if it's the last thing I do. :crazy:
 
The spreadsheet is a great idea! I haven't tested it yet, but I still have some questions and comments from looking at the spreadsheet alone.
oppositelock
Weight distribution can't be used to calculate spring rates with* knowing the motion ratio of the vehicle suspension.
Click to expand...
(typo? should be without"?)
Just wondering if you have any evidence that GT5 uses motion ratios? I'm not disagreeing that it's possible. There was a thread about this for GT4, in the end it couldn't be proved either way, so I'm wondering if you've found something new for GT5?

As for the protected cells, just to let you know that I can see all the forumlae. Can't edit them, but I can see them.

(a bit off topic, hope it's ok anyway) How did you come up with the ratios of front to rear camber? Is it trial and error based on laptimes/feel? I did a heap of measurements in GT4 of camber vs acceleration, braking, top speed, low speed cornering and high speed cornering; so I'd be really interested if you've done something similar for GT5.
 
Good eye, yes that's a typo. I came to the conclusion GT models motion ratios because the spring rates seem to correspond to real life rates. For example, look up spring rates on MKIV Supra coilovers. The front spring is usually roughly twice as strong as the rear, just as in the game (or at least what I remember from GT4) despite the fact the car has near 50:50 distribution. If it didn't factor motion ratios the Supra would be an unbalanced mess, yet I find the opposite to be true. It's only when you try to even out the springs that it becomes unbalanced. I highly doubt PD actually takes a tape measure to the suspension on these cars, I but I'd bet they have a formula that gets it pretty close.

The camber angles are loosely based on my experience in autocross. Generally speaking, put the camber where the weight is. The fact that the sheet generally calls for softer swaybars on the heavier end of the car also means more body roll on that end, meaning more camber is required. Using that as a foundation I came up with this baseline:

FF: 2.4/1.6
FAWD: 2.2./1.8
FR: 2.0/2.0
MR/MAWD: 1.8/2.2
RR/RAWD: 1.6/2.4

This didn't feel quite right or seem realistic, so I added a tick of front bias by shifting the list upward (downward? whatever). I also shifted the MAWD and RAWD cars up the list to deal with the added understeer versus their RWD counterparts:

FF: 2.6/1.4
FAWD: 2.4/1.6
FR/MAWD: 2.2/1.8
MR/RAWD: 2.0/2.0
RR: 1.8/2.2

Perfect? Absolutely not. But it's the most systematic approach I can come up with.
 
Last edited:
This is an excellent idea bud. I had a similar idea for my GT5 DB/App I'm building. I started by building a simple Access DB to track my cars and tunes for various tracks, but it's turning into a monster project with forms and a front-end set of tools. Your tool could be a great addition. I have some ideas at the very least that could enhance your tool's 'user-friendlyness' as it is.

As for the technical feedback, I did try it on a few cars and track combos. Well it did improve in some cases, but not until after getting used to the change in the car's behavior. The cars I tried it on were cars I could never get just right and wind up just playing with toe to get the best balance. Case in point: the Xanavi Nizmo '06. This car has some oversteer out of the box, and I never took the time to play with the suspension to fix it. I usually just drop the car, beef up the springs and dampers, and play with toe, mostly because I'm a noob 'ol fart and don't want to take the time to do it properly with science. Besides I didn't know until now how close to reality these settings really are. Case in point: The SLR McLaren '03. I know a test driver who tested this car when it came out, and he has all the settings they used to dial it in. Your tool came up with a very close setting for sport/soft tires.

At the very least, this tool helped me get a good baseline which then helped me tweak the car to my driving style.

So if someone states that there's little/no change using this tool, they likely spent a few hours dialing in their car. At the very least this tool will save those hours so folks can get to racing.

Anyway, I like where you are going with this and would like to collaborate to include it in my GT5 App.

Message me, PSNID is same as GTPlanetID...

Regards,
Majiktom
 
I'm buying this if you release it as an Iphone App or a Flash app. I'm donating if you make it open source.

Cheers

Thomas
 
(sorry for the late reply, I forgot to turn on email notification for this thread)
oppositelock
Good eye, yes that's a typo
....
Perfect? Absolutely not. But it's the most systematic approach I can come up with.
Click to expand...
It's a very good approach IMHO! Your spreadsheet makes a great starting point from which to refine a tune.

A bit off topic, but what do you think about the effect of ride height on the f/r spring ratio. Say you raised the front by 20mm, do you think the spring ratio should be increased further forwards (to account for the increased roll torque because the front CG is now acting at a greater distance)?
 
nomis3613
A bit off topic, but what do you think about the effect of ride height on the f/r spring ratio. Say you raised the front by 20mm, do you think the spring ratio should be increased further forwards (to account for the increased roll torque because the front CG is now acting at a greater distance)?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think ride height in and of itself should be used to alter handling. Ride height should be dependent on suspension stiffness, not vice versa, and I don't see much benefit to using rake in either direction unless your spring rates are really goofy and you were able to detect the soft end bottoming out. Raising one end of the car and then then raising the spring rate to counteract that is not something I would do myself.
 
Last edited:
^ yeah I only use ride height as a last resort.

Something else I just thought of: most car makers deliberately dial in understeer out of the factory, if they're using springs to do this, then it messes up your motion ratio calc. Not that I can suggest a way to avoid this, but just something to keep in mind...
 

Latest Posts

Back