better calculator?
- Thread starter Samareye
- 61 comments
- 5,296 views
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
Meh...
Nice double post. That's all I have to contribute.
Nice double post. That's all I have to contribute.
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
Thanks Hami, I'll take it from here. I know the OP has tried to ward off what he considers trolling statements, (Not a troll, ask Hami, just not afraid to voice my opinion) but I will tell you there is no substute for good old hands on, brain work, and experience in creating a good tune and the feeling of accomplishment that comes from it. I will gladly put the best tuners on here against any calculator. I am not putting myself in there as I only recently gotten into tuning but I would never use a calculator. In my opinion, using a calculator is just a lazy mans way to tune a car. My opinion, sorry if you can't deal with it.
- 864
- NorCal
- oppositelock27
That Quick Tune thingamajigger is pure crap. I prefer to tune using tarot cards.
- 158
- MTLclllutch
yes its all in the stars
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
You can't replace experience, sorry.
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
If you need a starting point, get with Hami or HIGHLANDOR. There the ones that helped me get started in tuning and they have great starting points for tuning. Also, some of the stickies in this forum are of great help if you take the time to read them. With all of the great info and helpful people on here, there is no reason to use a calculator. You just have to put forth a little effort, thats all.
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
^This guy has it right too.
I've tested Highlandor's method myself, and while I don't entirely agree with it, it does work to some extent for a basis... Then again so does simply eyeballing it. (His theory is based around weight distribution; set the springs to that end's weight % within their range. i.e. a car with 50/50 weight distribution and spring rate ranges front/rear of 3.0-15.0 would wind up with 9.0/9.0 spring rates as a basis, 60/40 would get 10.2/4.8, etc. Take max spring rate, subtract min spring rate, multiply by decimal form of that end's weight % (0.60=60%).
The only thing that can truly be calculated is gear ratios... And even then there's still some footwork needed.
I've tested Highlandor's method myself, and while I don't entirely agree with it, it does work to some extent for a basis... Then again so does simply eyeballing it. (His theory is based around weight distribution; set the springs to that end's weight % within their range. i.e. a car with 50/50 weight distribution and spring rate ranges front/rear of 3.0-15.0 would wind up with 9.0/9.0 spring rates as a basis, 60/40 would get 10.2/4.8, etc. Take max spring rate, subtract min spring rate, multiply by decimal form of that end's weight % (0.60=60%).
The only thing that can truly be calculated is gear ratios... And even then there's still some footwork needed.
- 864
- NorCal
- oppositelock27
I currently have 386 cars in my garage. Let's say it takes an hour to tune each one manually and 10 minutes to use a calculator. That's 13.4 days of my life back, or 13.4 days racing instead of tuning. How often do I lose a race by a fraction of a second because I didn't use a marginally better manual tune? Not very often.
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
It only takes about 10 minutes to get a marginally better result than the calculators spit out anyway. In fact, in some cases, I'll bet I can outrun the calculator without even driving the car.
Onboy123
Premium
- 8,872
- Hong Kong
- Onboy123
Sorry for sticking my head into this, but I think there's a very good reason for that. It's becuase you're you!!
You're the guy who can do 'blind tuning' without a PS3, of course you can beat a make-shift tune by a calculator!
- 4,803
- Dearborn, MI
- MotorCtyHamilton
Where did that other newby go who said he liked to crunch data. I thought I gave him a pretty good idea. Enter all of the currently posted tunes from all of our garages into a database then start drawing some conclusions. How similar did FR cars of a certain hp end up in general after all of the hours of tuning we've all put in, for example. I thought that would be a cool exercise - I just don't have that kind of time.
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
I'll tell you what oh smart one. I'll take my tune (and I'm not even a tuning ace) that I created, and you take your microwave tune out on the track and we'll see which is better. Tell me, how the hell is that calculator gonna know your driving style or better yet, if your using a wheel, controller, or HKS. I have all three so I know that all three have to be tuned for differently.
- 864
- NorCal
- oppositelock27
- 36
- spank_my_bum
Personally I use oppositelocks spreadsheet or the android calc version, a few minutes gets me a nice drive with the ability to simply add understeer or oversteer however i like to drive. Ive tried the gt5calc but i cant be bothered with searching the internet looking for a cars wheelbase just to get a setup. If I wanted to spend hours on a tune I would but with the quicktune ive no need to.
- 388
- gtp_brit999
Oppositelock helped me when I started out trying to get more from cars by tuning, rather than just putting stage 3 turbo and max weight reduction/downforce/tyres/upgrades on everything.
It is a START. It is not definitive. I am currently reading and learning (ie putting in a little effort) on how to make the tunes better, but it is a long way to go until I reach your esteemed Godliness.
So I say to the OP: Try everything, and every different possibility. When you find someone has made the correct tune or calculator for you try a different tune. If it works stick with it. Then learn a little more how to tweak the tunes.
I for one thank oppositelock for his efforts.
- 926
- Virginia
- LemonDiscus, GTP_RyanErb
That was me... lol
Yeah, I actually started building a database to store existing tunes...
\~~~~~~~ For the OP ~~~~~~~~~~\
I learned working with even highly developed calculations there is still unknowns that PD doesnt inform you of hiding within their codebase... If I have to make up something, it wont work....
\~~~~~~~ Back to the Database for tuners ~~~~~~~~~~\
The issues that I have with the database is in the car database.... Is there an Excel Sheet of every car??? It has to be Excel, XML or SQL... I got to entering about 90 cars and got wore out with that...
I am looking for these 3 items:
Car Make
Car Model
Premium/Standard
~~ Year would be an added bonus but not needed ~~
I have the basic Database Schema made but no user interface for it as I want to load the cars in it first for basic testing as I build.
- 388
- gtp_brit999
- 926
- Virginia
- LemonDiscus, GTP_RyanErb
Sweet! I found a few but they were MUCH FURTHER from completed lists than this one 👍
I can do some pretty wicked stuff with that list...
I would still need the tuners to use it once I build it
FYI - It will be a few step process...
First I am building the database basics... Then I will set up a way that you tuners can use it to store your existing tunes... And as that grows I could add cross referencing between different tuners and what not. BTW I am adding what track it was tuned for (track times optional) in addition to hardware used (DS3/Wheel) so when a person wants to find something they can select what they have and what car they want to use and on what track. Of course early on that wont all work but hopefully the database will fill up!
Last edited:
)
- 864
- NorCal
- oppositelock27
Thanks to both of you. I've had dozens of people reply back with positive comments about both Quick Tune and RDAardvark's app version. In contrast, naysayers have been few and far between. Obviously, something of this nature will never be 100% perfect as GT leaves us in the dark about so much vital information. Instead of being constructive, some people tend to use that as an opportunity to boast about their own uberleet tuning skills, either real or imagined. You guys seem to get it, as do most users. So again, thank you.
- 926
- Virginia
- LemonDiscus, GTP_RyanErb
I know it can be done... figuring out the assumptions that PD made (and they did not enter EVERY aspect of each and every car into their system) is the hardest part... I just dont have the energy when there are guys like you that have already came MUCH further than I have.
I myself gave up on the calculator and just used the info learned as gained knowledge instead. And I chose to follow a different path that I could make MUCH quicker! (if the community uses it)
I have a car table now!!!... that was an interesting conversion of files..... On to the other tables
JackWilson
Premium
- 1,465
- Jersey, UK
- Jack_Wilson247
- o0o0JACK0o0o
Casio's are good.
- 11,207
- Adrian, Mich.
- cargorat323
- CargoRatt
You guys with your little calculators and such crack me up. Not smart enough, or just to damn lazy to do it with your brain. And I never said I was a god or holy, matter of fact I even stated that I was no tuning ace. Just said that I could probably make a better tune my way as opposed to punching in a bunch of numbers into a calculator and hoping for the best. And OPPOSITELOCK, your on my Christmas list bro, a pair of nerd classes and a pocket protector coming your way to go along with your calculator. Merry Christmas bro.
- 926
- Virginia
- LemonDiscus, GTP_RyanErb
Will do. I have a few tables together for the cars now. Still have to build a user system and the settings tables... I think it will be a week or 2 to get the User Interface built. As soon as that is up and people can start to put tunes into it I will let everyone know.
The point of this is to move away from searching several threads to find a tune for the car you want. All you would have to do (if the tunes are there) is to pick your car and it will spit out available tunes and who made them.
In the future I can get averages of what other use and things like that using the existing data if it stays stable enough to do. Its not quite as easy as it sounds (though its stuff I like to do anyways and what I do for a living)
Then dont use them, your not the people that these tools are there to try and help... No use rubbing it in about your tune can beat a calculated tune... maybe so... who cares, comments like that are useless in what the OP was even talking about and offer no information whatsoever...
Similar threads
- Sticky
Latest Posts
-
ChatGPT believes we will soon be able to implement any car or track into GT7!- Latest: TurismoTalker
-
-
-
