Anyone figured out the math behind PP yet??

[Bluez_Freak]

Besides HP & weight, what other factors affect it??

 

[White & Nerdy]

You forgot the mysterious factor which results in a go-kart being placed right up there with a tuned 350z (or something like that).

 

[cH3wY]

Downforce.

X1 with default downforce had 974PP where as with max downforce it had 999

 

[Sm0k3:D]

Besides HP & weight, what other factors affect it??

Aerodinamics is another factor.

 

[Bluez_Freak]

Yes Aerodynamics/downforce for sure as well.

Does torque figure matter?

 

[Borisdollar]

I cant believe it doesnt factor in 4 wheel drive, front wheel drive & rear wheel drive. The difference can be astonishing.

 

[asdfg11]

I cant believe they took tryes out of the maths

 

[JamboGT]

Well tyres did effect it? Have they changed this?

 

[Bluez_Freak]

Well they thought tyres are a different type of restriction. It is not entirely unreasonable, but they should probably have let it in the calculation.

 

[Khoin]

I think it's good that tires have been taken out, since it's not directly the car's performance...

Downforce has a big effect, which is somewhat strange... ideally, the PP should just be higher because a car has adjustable downforce, not because it it set to max (that isn't a guarantee for the best performance afterall)

I also noticed that changes like flywheel and clutch make no difference, which is a bit weird...

 

[Poppins]

They dont really affect anything other then shift time and throttle response I guess is why,

Changing speed on custom tranny I think has an affect.

 

[Khoin]

They dont really affect anything other then shift time and throttle response I guess is why,

Changing speed on custom tranny I think has an affect.

Well yeah, but isn't that a performance upgrade?

Prolly true about the tranny, though I think that should be like downforce: PP for the fact that you have a customisable one... but meh

 

[Poppins]

Im pretty sure that would make it pointlessly stupid because having adjustable downforce should instantly make you have more, it should only make it more if you turn it up, same with the tranny.

This is exactly how it is and it is good imo.

 

[kikie]

KY's logic is one of the factors.

 

[Nightingale]

This is my best guess (more of a wild throw, really) of how it works, though I am quite sure that I am wrong. It is a very difficult thing to just describe a car's performance with a simple number, so it is probably naive to think it could be as simple as this:

PP = (aX + bY)/(cM) + dZ

where:
a, b, c, and d are some arbitrary constants.
X is the area under the power curve from 0 RPM to max RPM.
Y is the area under the torque curve from 0 RPM to max RPM.
M is the mass of the car.
Z is the total downforce of the car.

 

[Bobtehblob]

I heard that Chuck Norris does all the calculations.

 

[RufusGonePunk]

Im pretty sure that would make it pointlessly stupid because having adjustable downforce should instantly make you have more, it should only make it more if you turn it up, same with the tranny.

This is exactly how it is and it is good imo.

Yeah, but having max downforce shouldn't be an advantage on all tracks. Which is a flaw of the PP system, and which is why go karts have such rediculous PP values. Yeah, they'd kill a 350Z round a tight and technical kart track but on anything the size of Tsukuba or bigger it'd be no contest.

I can't see why having a higher top speed should affect a car's PP value. On Tsukuba I'd rather not have a car capable of 250mph, I'd like it to have bilstering acceleration.

So yeah, tracks should have an effect on PP values too. Doubt they ever will though, it'd just get too complicated.

 

[atledreier]

Think of performance points as performance POTENTIAL. Of course a heavy powerful car will behave differently to a light lower powered car with the same PP number. Similar PP doesn't mean similar actual performance on a particular track. If that was the case, the biggest factor of all should be the driver.

 

[Bluez_Freak]

This is my best guess (more of a wild throw, really) of how it works, though I am quite sure that I am wrong. It is a very difficult thing to just describe a car's performance with a simple number, so it is probably naive to think it could be as simple as this:

PP = (aX + bY)/(cM) + dZ

where:
a, b, c, and d are some arbitrary constants.
X is the area under the power curve from 0 RPM to max RPM.
Y is the area under the torque curve from 0 RPM to max RPM.
M is the mass of the car.
Z is the total downforce of the car.

Its these arbitrary constants I am worried about

 

[DMC_S2000]

This is my best guess (more of a wild throw, really) of how it works, though I am quite sure that I am wrong. It is a very difficult thing to just describe a car's performance with a simple number, so it is probably naive to think it could be as simple as this:

PP = (aX + bY)/(cM) + dZ

where:
a, b, c, and d are some arbitrary constants.
X is the area under the power curve from 0 RPM to max RPM.
Y is the area under the torque curve from 0 RPM to max RPM.
M is the mass of the car.
Z is the total downforce of the car.

Oh my God I remembered my college days in math.....

 

[charliec]

Its these arbitrary constants I am worried about

They're constants though. Power, torque, mass, etc would be (should be) consistently weighted the same for all vehicles. I mean ultimately, it's up to the driver to decide what kind of track they're racing on and if having a lighter weight car would be more advantageous than having a more powerful car.

If people are expecting a system that makes everything black and white for them, it'll never happen. You're going to have to use your own judgement on some level about what will be an appropriate car.