1.09 update physics changes....
- Thread starter feydrautha
- 407 comments
- 23,776 views
- 406
- Victoria, B.C.
- skypilotrv4
I agree that it is not going to make you faster, inherently. It depends on how use the setup. IMO, the fastest way at this point is to tailor a car to your driving style. I find this a lot with a few buddies. We'll play online, I'll get off, make some tweaks and the next time I've shaved a half second to a second off. "Duuude, what did you change??" I'll tell them, they'll try the setup and do the same or worse than they were before. "The car understeers so badly!" Not for meIf your tuner late apexes, trail brakes, etc. and you don't, you're going to be making a lot of adjustments/may want to try asking for another tune or seeking another tuner. Just something that I'm noticing right now, because I brake and apex very late. Because of that, I'm usually running the front fairly soft, with the compression between 7-9 for nosediving and then I run toe out in the rear on every single car I tune to exit hard and rotate the rear on entry and midturn. Just what feels best to me and I think that is probably go to go the way of most. How hard and at what points you turn in, get on the throttle and so on.
Another thing I find to tighten up a car as much as possible from the get-go, is run your steering wheel at a lower lock. I tune my cars on 450* and they're ridiculously easy to bang on at 670 and 900 (g27 user).
Hi 332i
I used to run my G-27at 670, with my steering sensitivity at "2". With 1.09, I had to go back to stock on the 670 and just continue to use "2" sensitivity, except for F-1 where I use "0".
What sensitivity are you using for base on your G-27 when using 670 or other??
Thanks, Mustangxr.
Oh Gawd!!
That sounds so much like a typical track day, it's priceless!!
Thank you.
332i
(Banned)
- 855
- Morocco
- yadeegson
- 406
- Victoria, B.C.
- skypilotrv4
WOW 332i You must have the reflexes of a Ninja!
I have trouble with Karts running 900* and sensitivity Zero?? Must be an old guys syndrome.LOL
I've been working on a Lotus 111R tune for the last couple of days. I would like to post it and have some of you expert guys test drive it for me. I bought a new car for this as I already have one 111R and I wanted to keep the tunes on that one, so I started from scratch on the new one.
What I did with the new car was to use Mr.P's 500PP tune for everything but the suspension tuning. Then I set the suspension page to 1.09 default, then did a whole series of test racing at Apricot in the 550 PP Seasonal using the Lotus at 500PP running Sport Mediums. I then did a systematic test of individual settings, i.e. camber and toe, on front and back, while racing, ballast and no ballast, different ballast etc, different ride heights etc.
The result was a pretty cool car that skates around Apricot while effortlessly passing all the big iron and definitely holds a better line than all the other cars. All my passing was usually done in the first 2 laps or 2.5 laps at the latest. The lap times were based on the last 2 or 3 laps while running free, and/or good laps while running in traffic were also included. I'm not very knowledgeable about tweaking the LSD so there could be some more time in there too.
Would anyone be interested??
Cheers, Mustangxr
Last edited by a moderator:
- 3,998
- New Jersey
- crash27wwjd
Post and see. I might try if I get a chance.
332i
(Banned)
- 855
- Morocco
- yadeegson
Haha no, I wish was some sort of ninja. I'm just used to it from real life that's all. It's so much easier to catch a twitch and your corrections are made in a much short spectrum, so you're not whipping the wheel around when the rear kicks. Turning in is a little sharp at first, but you'd get used to it
I liked 670 on the g27, until I'm midway through a hairpin and have to cross my forearms to the point that my elbows are touching. Everyone has preferences, though. A lot of people seem to go with the 670 or 900. Those settings are definitely easier on the forearms and hands if you play a fair amount. My joints in my hands and wrists get pretty sore after a couple hours. We'll race online all damn night and in the morning, my thumbs, index and middle fingers are sore as hell sometimes.
- 406
- Victoria, B.C.
- skypilotrv4
YEAH BOTH WOULD BE GOOD.
I did not tweak spring rate at all, and probably it needs a bit of front spring to stop bottoming at the end of the Apricot straight at 162 mph. I went to racing brakes but I barely touch them entering the first corner and occasionally get a spinout from bottoming out.
I will publish the tune shortly, need to copy it from the screen to paper to here....
Cheers, Mustangxr
- 406
- Victoria, B.C.
- skypilotrv4
Lotus Elise 111R '04
This is a modified Praiano tune for 1.09 suspension tuning purposes.
275 HP/500PP tune @814Kg
RH = Front 105 Rear 125 (changed from default)
Springs 4.92/8.76 (default)
comp 3/3 (default)
extension 3/3 (default)
roll bars 3/3 (default)
camber -0.5/-1.5 (default)
Toe -0.10/+0.60 (front toe is changed from default)
Brakes = racing 7/10 (changed from Praiano)
Ballast is 32kg@-50% (which is changed from default of 0)
Weight distribution is 44/56%
LSD 7/20/24 (Praiano)
Power: Sports exhaust, stage 2 tune, high RPM turbo, 99.3% power
Twin plate clutch and Stage 2 weight reduction
Transmission: Final to 5500, speed to 112mph, set gears, set final.
1. = 3.238
2. = 2.436
3. = 1.983
4. = 1.639
5. = 1.368
6. = 1.167
Final gear = 3.400
All testing was done at Apricot Hill in the 550 PP Seasonal
Using the stock Praiano tune (using ZERO camber) and race brakes my best time was 1;27.5 and 5 laps for 7:54
I then tuned default 1.09 suspension page entirely but with (Praiano) ballast and ran1:28.4 and 5 laps for 7:56
The same default suspension with no ballast gave me ...........................................1:30.xx and 5laps for8:22
Added 28 kg of ballast........................................................................................1:27.4 ...........7:51
added 38 kg of ballast........................................................................................1;27.5....................8:03
added 32 kg of ballast.........................................................................................1;27.1...................7:45
all remaining testing will be with 32 kg of ballast
reduced front camber to 0 degrees........................................................................1:28......................7:57
returned to default camber values but increased rear ride ht to 125mm......................1:27.5...................7:51
left ride ht same at 125mm and changed front toe -out to -0.10.................................1:27.0...................7:46
changed from above to toe out increased to -0.15.....................................................1:27.3..................7:48
changed front toe out back to -0.10, seemed optimum...............................................1:26.9..................7:53
compare with stock Praiano tune with zero camber.....................................................1:27.5..................7:54
added front aero type B, rest all the same.................................................................1:26.8..................7:47
Cranked up the HP to 350 and 534PP woo hoo!!.........................................................1:25.0...................7:39
I think the biggest change here is not in the times, but the feeling of confidence and the reduction in the a$$ heavy feel of this car on the wheel. The car slides yes, but it is very controllable, and going wide in a turn is so easily changed by a light tap on the brake pedal to regain the line.
Let me know what you think,
Mustangxr
This is a modified Praiano tune for 1.09 suspension tuning purposes.
275 HP/500PP tune @814Kg
RH = Front 105 Rear 125 (changed from default)
Springs 4.92/8.76 (default)
comp 3/3 (default)
extension 3/3 (default)
roll bars 3/3 (default)
camber -0.5/-1.5 (default)
Toe -0.10/+0.60 (front toe is changed from default)
Brakes = racing 7/10 (changed from Praiano)
Ballast is 32kg@-50% (which is changed from default of 0)
Weight distribution is 44/56%
LSD 7/20/24 (Praiano)
Power: Sports exhaust, stage 2 tune, high RPM turbo, 99.3% power
Twin plate clutch and Stage 2 weight reduction
Transmission: Final to 5500, speed to 112mph, set gears, set final.
1. = 3.238
2. = 2.436
3. = 1.983
4. = 1.639
5. = 1.368
6. = 1.167
Final gear = 3.400
All testing was done at Apricot Hill in the 550 PP Seasonal
Using the stock Praiano tune (using ZERO camber) and race brakes my best time was 1;27.5 and 5 laps for 7:54
I then tuned default 1.09 suspension page entirely but with (Praiano) ballast and ran1:28.4 and 5 laps for 7:56
The same default suspension with no ballast gave me ...........................................1:30.xx and 5laps for8:22
Added 28 kg of ballast........................................................................................1:27.4 ...........7:51
added 38 kg of ballast........................................................................................1;27.5....................8:03
added 32 kg of ballast.........................................................................................1;27.1...................7:45
all remaining testing will be with 32 kg of ballast
reduced front camber to 0 degrees........................................................................1:28......................7:57
returned to default camber values but increased rear ride ht to 125mm......................1:27.5...................7:51
left ride ht same at 125mm and changed front toe -out to -0.10.................................1:27.0...................7:46
changed from above to toe out increased to -0.15.....................................................1:27.3..................7:48
changed front toe out back to -0.10, seemed optimum...............................................1:26.9..................7:53
compare with stock Praiano tune with zero camber.....................................................1:27.5..................7:54
added front aero type B, rest all the same.................................................................1:26.8..................7:47
Cranked up the HP to 350 and 534PP woo hoo!!.........................................................1:25.0...................7:39
I think the biggest change here is not in the times, but the feeling of confidence and the reduction in the a$$ heavy feel of this car on the wheel. The car slides yes, but it is very controllable, and going wide in a turn is so easily changed by a light tap on the brake pedal to regain the line.
Let me know what you think,
Mustangxr
Last edited:
332i
(Banned)
- 855
- Morocco
- yadeegson
HA. I just spent a while tuning the wrong car. Nice lol. I did the race car. Went to the seasonal and couldn't find which one you had been working on. Because racecar. Haha. I'll take a crack at the street car tomorrow, my bad man. Festivities, ya' know? The 111r track car feels nice, though. I'll have to post that, too maybe.
The 111r track car feels nice, though. I'll have to post that, too maybe.
- 252
- UK
- jules283
I'll have a go when I can drag my son away from ps3 !!
Probably late tonight or tomorrow
Edit : add another day to that ! I like your tune a lot , and I thought to offer up a tune which reverses some of the principles within your tune. So I must wait till tonight for my son to release ps3 again !!
Last edited:
- 3,603
- London, Ontario
- voodoovaj
well, I am going to officially entrench myself in the camber camp. The ballpark adjustment I found works best is to have 0.5/0.5 for 50/50 at 1000kg. Add 0.1 for every 100kg above and subtract 0.1 for every 100kg below. I add/subtract to the front or rear depending on the weight distribution.
The big change though is the toe angles. 0 toe is MUCH slower in the corners compared to having positive toe in the rear and negative toe in the front.
The big change though is the toe angles. 0 toe is MUCH slower in the corners compared to having positive toe in the rear and negative toe in the front.
- 3,603
- London, Ontario
- voodoovaj
RS, SS, and CS
I read about tires differences, but other than grip levels the tires behave the same as far as I am concerned. I have yet to see a good CS setup become a bad SS or RS set up.
The game tires aren't like real tires. There are no construction differences like in the real world. Also, we all know that a car's grip is set in the chassis, not in the tires. The tires are merely grip modifiers. The new tire model makes this grip modification react better, but it still isn't the same as reality.
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
A fairly sweeping rule across the board on your end.
I'll have to compare my own results when I finish testing, I'm trying to be systematic with my approach to try and get rid of variables but that makes progress slow at best. Knowing my luck the whole thing will be long figured out by the time I'm finished
- 85
- Miami FL
- slow_crash101
I work as an auto tech, and every car I have ever worked on had more camber in the rear than the front as a factory alignment. Toe angles seem ridiculously excessive, my personal car is an S2000 and the factory alignment settings have front camber 0.0-0.6 degrees, I run 1 degree up front in my real and GT6 cars. Rear camber is 1.0-1.6, I'm lowered so I'm running 2.7, which is another thing PD effed up. When you change ride height you change static camber, and also when you run more static camber up front it changes your caster settings(which surprises me caster is not a tunable parameter). Another thing that changes is motion ratios, and roll centers, not to mention that toe also changes dynamically depending on suspension travel. I guess this would make GT6 too much sim for the kiddies. In the real world, a lot goes into suspension set up to properly control roll centers and dynamic toe changes.
Also, if I were to use the default toe settings in the game on my street car(.50 degrees) my tires would probably only last about 3,000 miles before being worn through the carcass. In real life I run 0 toe in the front, and .26 degrees of toe in the rear, which is a smidge more than dead middle of the factory adjustment range(when you have more than two degrees of rear camber a bit of extra toe will even out tire wear). Most cars I've ever worked on have .35 degrees as the upper limit for toe in the rear.
Also, if I were to use the default toe settings in the game on my street car(.50 degrees) my tires would probably only last about 3,000 miles before being worn through the carcass. In real life I run 0 toe in the front, and .26 degrees of toe in the rear, which is a smidge more than dead middle of the factory adjustment range(when you have more than two degrees of rear camber a bit of extra toe will even out tire wear). Most cars I've ever worked on have .35 degrees as the upper limit for toe in the rear.
- 252
- UK
- jules283
WOW, what a tune. I agree with all that you say about it. With your posted parts list I only got 261bhp and 493PP, maybe you changed oil?
But, yeah, a wonderful tune with so much rear grip. It requires massive provocation to break it loose on corner entry and has a great, direct front end. I noticed the nose dive/brakes, maybe standard brakes would work better?
My guess on what's at work here is that the improved grip on MR cars for 1.09, plus the 1.50 rear camber, plus the 0.60 rear toe makes for a very stable rear end with lots of understeer...BUT...when combined with 32kg ballast at front, raked ride height (which shifts weight forward imo) and -0.10 front toe, understeer is gone and a very pointy front end becomes available...anyway it all adds up to a MR car with a fast front end without the accompanying wild oversteer. The rear stays on-line. Excellent.
I can't offer any tips to improve this tune. It is great as it is! (and I can't beat it).
But here is an alternative tune attempting to find a balance with standard weight distribution. Just for fun!
Lotus Elise 111R '04
Spec : 499PP, 267BHP, 800KG, 42:58 WD.
Parts : SM Tyres, Full custom suspension, Standard brakes, Custom transmission, LSD, Twin-plate clutch, Stage 3 engine tune, Sports exhaust, High-rpm turbo, Stage 1 weight reduction.
Settings :
RH : 100 / 100
SR : 5.00 / 10.12
Comp : 4 / 4
Ext : 4 / 4
ARB : 4 / 4
Camber : 0 / 0
Toe : 0 / +0.60
Brakes : 8 / 10
LSD : 10 / 10 / 45
Power : 100%
Ballast : 1kg at -6
Trans : Final to 6.000, then speed to 118mph, then,
First : 2.775
Second : 2.045
Third : 1.615
Fourth : 1.340
Fifth : 1.145
Sixth : 1.000
Final : 3.900
Note : I tried camber on this tune and it does work and may suit some people. Rear camber adds too much understeer to this tune but front camber of 0.5 to 1.0 works well.
Mustangxr , I will definitely keep your tune on my 111R. Thanks !
- 85
- Miami FL
- slow_crash101
Rear camber doesn't induce understeer and in fact front camber causes more understeer than rear camber on a rear wheel drive car. As the suspension loads during a corner, the rear spindle will try to toe out. The front resists this because of it's caster and steering rack, you don't steer the rear wheels, they're usually fixed. As the tire rolls flat in the corner because of the dynamic + static camber plus the thrust vector of the tires due to the drive train, and the toe out created by the suspension travel, the net result on the rear tires is a yaw momentum. This yaw momentum on the tires is always present during cornering and is buffered by weight transfer, tire contact patch, and how much drive is being transmitted through that axle. Meaning the greater the static camber and the smaller the amount of toe-in, the smaller the overall contact patch and more potential oversteer. The contact patch is smaller because the toe-out caused by suspension deflection keeps the tire riding the inside shoulder, with more static toe in, the tires wouldn't toe out but rather maintain more toe in which would steer the tire into the corner negating some of that yaw momentum caused by the tires, this is evidenced by more even tire wear.
Most cars use very little front toe factory alignments, because the caster creates dynamic camber as the wheel is turned, and turning the wheel also creates dynamic toe through the steering rack.
Toe affects the rear much more than the front for this very reason.
You would run crazy camber angles in the front because you plan on using greater steering angles than you would otherwise need to use, particularly right before the apex and on corner exit.
Most cars use very little front toe factory alignments, because the caster creates dynamic camber as the wheel is turned, and turning the wheel also creates dynamic toe through the steering rack.
Toe affects the rear much more than the front for this very reason.
You would run crazy camber angles in the front because you plan on using greater steering angles than you would otherwise need to use, particularly right before the apex and on corner exit.
Last edited:
- 406
- Victoria, B.C.
- skypilotrv4
Jules,
Thanks for the feedback! And thanks for you tune, I will load it tomorrow and give it a spin, (Ooops, poor choice of words there) LOL. I am heartened by your generosity in sharing tunes. Others have talked about doing this but never delivered, which was disappointing.
Cheers, Mustangxr
Can you elaborate? higher ride height=more neg camber? can you quantify it?
yeah, but toe out (negative), no? (IRL and GT6)
I use toe-out -at the expense of some stability and speed in turns- in GT6 if I want to go more laps... at least pre 1.09.
F1 or NASCAR engineers would disagree... they run more camber in the front than rear.
Toe-in or toe-out?
Does some toe-out in the front help offset the effect of some toe-in on the rear? (e.g. a car has +.20 rear toe, would putting -.20 front toe be the same as removing the rear toe-in, basically?
@jules283
with very light cars, adding (a lot of) weight can do wonders, have you tried with the Elise?
Last edited:
- 451
@godlameroso You would be doing a great service to readers if you could start your posts with a clear indication when you're discussing real world tuning principles.
It's helpful to those of us who play GT6 and don't have real race cars to tune as we can skip the post to concentrate on those discussing the game's physics changes since the 1.09 update.
Apologies for singling out your post as there's been quite a few that have wandered off topic but this thread is quickly approaching 400 posts and it's quite a chore not to say, very confusing when looking for information on the thread topic.
It's helpful to those of us who play GT6 and don't have real race cars to tune as we can skip the post to concentrate on those discussing the game's physics changes since the 1.09 update.
Apologies for singling out your post as there's been quite a few that have wandered off topic but this thread is quickly approaching 400 posts and it's quite a chore not to say, very confusing when looking for information on the thread topic.
nope, I said a lot of weight lol
I know, ballast lowers the PP, and you can then add parts.Although I'm sure you're aware it is the change in weight distribution which helps, and not the increased weight
A recent seasonal had a lot of top drivers using a lightweight car, the Suzuki GSX. I reached my best times with full, 200kg ballast, positionned so weight was at 50/50 (which also lowers the PP, since it's a rear heavy car).
I took that same adding a lot of ballast approach with the Rocket in the 500pp seasonal and easily golded it. It seems to work, I theorize, because the PP formula is too dependant on kg/HP ratio (reason why Formula GT, Karts, Red Bull Junior also have high PP). Try it?
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
@godlameroso When you discuss the effects of ride height adjustments on camber you are referencing the real life process and are correct, the GT tuning system takes out those effects to stream line the process though.
When you adjust the ride height by compressing the springs via the bump stop you change the geometry and add negative static camber (depending on suspension type/geometry), you are still able to reset to your original angle by adjusting the camber arms after you have done this though and GT does this automatically to save the hassle. Every time you adjust something it is basically like resetting the car to have accurate geometry as detailed by the tuning settings.
The other thing is that when you compress your springs to adjust ride height in real life you are changing the properties and rating of the spring slightly, when you change ride height in game it is like having a brand new spring fitted to suit the new conditions. Its not realistic but it saves a lot of headaches for people who don't have experience with the inner workings of suspension design/function.
As far as I can tell there is no variance in the overall design of suspension once the fully custom part is fitted, they all gain negative camber on compression and very slight negative camber on extension (very little suspension droop when going over jumps). Lower ride heights seem to gain less active camber than higher settings. These features seem to be constant across all cars, I have seen no examples of one car gaining more/less camber during compression.
I'm interested on hearing more on the effects of static/active camber on toe angle as this is something I have yet to look into. If you could break it into key points that would be great as walls of text are easy to get lost in. 👍
When you adjust the ride height by compressing the springs via the bump stop you change the geometry and add negative static camber (depending on suspension type/geometry), you are still able to reset to your original angle by adjusting the camber arms after you have done this though and GT does this automatically to save the hassle. Every time you adjust something it is basically like resetting the car to have accurate geometry as detailed by the tuning settings.
The other thing is that when you compress your springs to adjust ride height in real life you are changing the properties and rating of the spring slightly, when you change ride height in game it is like having a brand new spring fitted to suit the new conditions. Its not realistic but it saves a lot of headaches for people who don't have experience with the inner workings of suspension design/function.
As far as I can tell there is no variance in the overall design of suspension once the fully custom part is fitted, they all gain negative camber on compression and very slight negative camber on extension (very little suspension droop when going over jumps). Lower ride heights seem to gain less active camber than higher settings. These features seem to be constant across all cars, I have seen no examples of one car gaining more/less camber during compression.
I'm interested on hearing more on the effects of static/active camber on toe angle as this is something I have yet to look into. If you could break it into key points that would be great as walls of text are easy to get lost in. 👍
- 85
- Miami FL
- slow_crash101
When you lower a car, you compress the suspension geometry the lower arm moves up more than the upper arm and essentially becomes longer than the upper arm, this moves the bottom of the wheel outward causing more camber. Once you lower a car it cannot be aligned back to factory specs unless you get custom control arms. Generally you don't add much toe out unless it's a front or all wheel drive vehicle. Also lowering a car affects the suspension motion ratio, meaning the suspension movement begins to influence damper motion to a higher degree.
You run toe in on a wheel cambered more than two negative degrees to reduce tire wear, again this is a general rule of thumb, and there is a window where it helps, and where it starts making things difficult.
F1 or NASCAR engineers would disagree... they run more camber in the front than rear.
I know they do, but then again you assume they're trying to tune oversteer into the car and not make it neutral. Also I don't see how them running more camber in the front negates that rear camber on it's own tends to cause more oversteer?
You run toe in on a wheel cambered more than two negative degrees to reduce tire wear, again this is a general rule of thumb, and there is a window where it helps, and where it starts making things difficult.
F1 or NASCAR engineers would disagree... they run more camber in the front than rear.
I know they do, but then again you assume they're trying to tune oversteer into the car and not make it neutral. Also I don't see how them running more camber in the front negates that rear camber on it's own tends to cause more oversteer?
- 3,867
- Saltash
- Dolhaus
The suspension is a fully customisable setup rather than a simple coils and dampers upgrade kit, therefore we must assume that all tuning options are fully customisable in terms of our needs. If we can set 10 degrees of negative camber at maximum ride height we can safely assume we are no longer reliant on the original suspension geometry limitations.
I don't think anyone has tested the tyre wear side of camber yet but it might be interesting to see if your theories ring true. My own interests are mostly based around the active effects on handling rather than tyre wear.
