damper thoughts

[nomis3613]

Hi,
Here's some food for thought about dampers:

1) Are damper settings backwards for (understeer and oversteer), like the springs are?
No dampers are not “backwards” in either how they react to bumps, or how they affect weight transfer.
(anyway I prefer to set springs according to the car's weight distribution and not using them to tune general under/oversteer, so to me it doesn't matter whether the springs are backwards in their balance effect or not)


2) How does damper setting affect the car's behavior over bumps?
The dampers affect how much grip is lost by the "impact" of striking the rough surface. If the dampers are tuned correctly, there will be no grip lost from the impact (however often the "bump" is part of a lower grip surface (eg a kerb) so the car will have less grip because driving over a kerb has less grip than the road).


3) What's the difference between bound and rebound for bumps?
Bound affects how much grip is lost in the initial impact, and rebound is how long it takes for the car to get back to full grip afterwards.

If the bound is too stiff, the bump will cause the whole car to be lifted upwards- an ideal bound setting causes just the suspension to lift and the body remains level.

If the rebound is too stiff, the wheel will “hang in the air” instead of returning to the road, causing a loss of grip. (the more technical explanation is that the suspension needs to extend after the crest of the bump, to maintain the contact patch).


4) If the above bad effects only occur when the damper settings are too stiff, does this mean you should you use the minimum damper settings for bumpy tracks?
No. Real life theory says that for a given spring rate, there is a damper stiffness required to best control the wheel movement, resulting in the least loss of grip. I believe GT4 models this correctly. However, if you are running stiff springs, it is most likely that even without the damper, the springs are too stiff to follow the bumps of the road. Try softening the springs first.

As for the benefits of stiffer dampers, see question 7. Also, stiffer dampers give a quicker repsonse to inputs (such as steering), so the car feels tighter and more responsive.


5) Should rebound be 3-4 times bound, like the scrolling text says?
I have found that even if the rebound setting is slightly higher than the bound (and the bound is set correctly), the wheel will not hang in the air after a bump. I do not believe the difference is 3-4 times, though, more like 2-3 clicks.


6) Should the dampers be tuned based on the spring stiffness (like real life)?
Hmmm... tricky question. I prefer to set the ratio of front to rear spring rate purely based on the car's static weight distribution, therefore I do not tweak the spring stiffness to match the dampers or vice versa. My preference is to set the overall spring stiffness (eg 2.5/2.0 vs 10/8) based on a compromise between body movement (braking dive and roll stiffness) and harshness over bumps. Then I use the dampers to fine tune the bump response and weight transfer. The short answer is no, if I double the spring stiffness, I will not automatically double the dampers- however I will check how the dampers behave with the new spring setting.


7) Soooo... I've heard dampers have other effects, like weight transfer during cornering/braking/accelerating?
Yep, there are 2 ways dampers effect handling, and sometimes they have the opposite effect. The effects are caused by 1) forward/backward weight transfer and 2) roll stiffness (where the dampers act like stabilisers). Also, the dampers only effect while the car suspension is moving (eg while the weight is moving forward as start to brake). Once the weight transfer is complete (eg later in the braking, once the noise is pointing downward at a constant angle), then the dampers have no effect.

Front Bound: increase this to reduce entry understeer, increasing also increases understeer in general (yes, it's self-contradictory- so if you have entry understeer you'd need to increase the front bound, then use some other setting to reduce the understeer in general)

Front Rebound: increase this to reduce exit oversteer, increasing also reduces oversteer in general

Rear Bound: increase this to reduce exit understeer, increasing also reduces understeer in general

Rear Rebound: increase this to reduce enty understeer, increasing also reduces understeer in general.


8) General tuning strategy
In my opinion, the most important function of the dampers is to hold the tyres on the road over bumps. If bumps are an issue, I'd be tuning the dampers solely to cope with the bumps best, and then use stabilisers etc to fix the handling balance. However if the track is smooth, then the dampers can be used for the weight transfer.


9) Disclaimer
I've based the bump response stuff from testing the Caterham (so you can easily see the suspension travel) at Nurburgring. The weight transfer testing was done using the Vantage at High Speed Ring, same as Sukerkin's method here. Sorry, I don't have lap times to campre, I think the feel of the car and comparing the lines with the ghost car gives better the results than lap times (which are highly influenced by inconsistent driving between runs).

Yes, at this stage the theory is based on 2 FR cars only at this stage.

Here's my original OP below (so the first few replies can be read in context)
---

1) Are damper settings backwards for (understeer and oversteer), like the springs are?
No dampers are not backwards. But the effect of dampers on overall balance is so minimal that it doesn't matter much anyway. Spring rates and stabilisers are far more effective at fixing balance problems.

2) How does damper setting affect the car's behavior over bumps?
The dampers affect how much grip is lost by the "impact" of striking the rough surface. If the dampers are tuned correctly, there will be no grip lost from the impact (however often the "bump" is part of a lower grip surface (eg a kerb) so the car will have less grip because driving over a kerb has less grip than the road).

3) What's the difference between bound and rebound?
My current theory is that bound affects how much grip is lost in the initial impact, and rebound is how long it takes for the car to get back to full grip afterwards (but whatever the effect is, it is very subtle so I'm still doubtful about this one)

4) Should rebound be 3-4 times bound, like the scrolling text says?
Again, the effect is so small, that it is hard to tell. On bumpy tracks, I found that softer suspension (both bound and rebound) gave the best results. For smooth tracks, again I found no benefit in using the 3-4 times rule. So I think the text is either wrong, or the effect is negligable. Or maybe this is true for the physical strength (eg damping force divided by shaft velocity), but the game already compensates for this in the values given in the slider. Maybe, maybe not.

5) Should the dampers be tuned based on the spring stiffness (like real life)?
No. In every case, I found that the softest dampers produced the smallest loss of grip over bumps. In technical jargon, this means that there is no such thing as an underdamped spring in GT4. Also, softer dampers mean the car turns better when the brakes are released (compared with stiffer dampers) at the start of a hairpin etc.

6) So the dampers should always be set to the minimum then?
Mostly. The biggest effect of dampers I found was the speed of the forward weight transfer for MR and RR cars (lift-off oversteer- how these cars want to spin out when you lift off the accelerator while turning). The important thing is that the dampers don't affect how strong the lift-off oversteer is, but how quickly it all happens. Softer dampers cause it to happen more slowly (which on one hand can give you time to correct the slide, but on the other hand by the time you notice it then it's too late). Stiffer dampers cause a more immediate loss of rear grip (so the sliding rear won't creep up on you, but maybe it will happen too quickly anyway).
The actual amount of lift-off oversteer can be reduced with stiffer rear springs (yes it sounds strange, but ask any 911 owner), the dampers only affect how quickly it all happens.

For cars without weight transfer problems (most FR and FF cars) then yeah I can't see any benefit in stiffer dampers. Softer dampers mean more turn-in and you'll be less disturbed by any bumps/kerbs you happen to meet.

 

[DK]

Dumps? Don't you mean jumps? Anyways, this has been great help, nomis3613, and I'll try softer dampers when I can.

 

[sukerkin]

Damper tuning is probably the most influential component altering the character of a cars set-up that exists in the game. Of course that is just my opinion and other people hold out other elements as being more important but I can usually tell the changes wrought by a one-click alteration in the rebound.

However, as ever with such things, the proviso is that this is reliant upon other factors being in the 'ball park' first, otherwise you can amend damper settings all you like and will not see much effect. Also, the overly sticky tyres of the game mean that some changes are overwhelmed by the unreal grip and give a false impression.

I've written an awful lot on the black art of damper tuning for GT over the years. Some of it applies only to the GT that was extant when I wrote it but some things are universal. Somethings I've written are also wrong as they represented the partial understanding I had at the time {bearing in mind I've been at this since GT1 }.

One key fact is that springs affect the 'magnitude' of weight balance/transfer and dampers affect the rate at which it happens. Likewise bound affects how the un-sprung weight moves and the rebound how the sprung weight moves i..e bound influences the initial response to a bump of the wheels (and the transmission of energy into the body) whilst rebound changes the 'set' the rest of the car takes as the initial 'bump' input passes. It's not as simple as that of course but it is a good place to start from when trying to figure out what is going on.

 

[nomis3613]

Dumps? Don't you mean jumps

Whoops! Actually, I meant "bumps". Thanks.

Also, the overly sticky tyres of the game mean that some changes are overwhelmed by the unreal grip and give a false impression.

Totally agree. My testing was done with SH and RH tyres mostly. And a lot of it was done at Seattle which is very lacking in grid. Although I suspect (not sure about it yet) that lower grip surfaces prefer softer settings and stiffer settings are only needed for higher grip tracks. Because the low grip levels mean you aren't generating as high weight transfer forces, so the suspension forces need to be lower to match them. Kinda like a "wet setup" IRL.

Somethings I've written are also wrong as they represented the partial understanding I had at the time {bearing in mind I've been at this since GT1 }.

Yeah, know that feeling. I can't believe it took me so long to believe that the spring rates are backwards!

One key fact is that springs affect the 'magnitude' of weight balance/transfer and dampers affect the rate at which it happens. Likewise bound affects how the un-sprung weight moves and the rebound how the sprung weight moves i..e bound influences the initial response to a bump of the wheels (and the transmission of energy into the body) whilst rebound changes the 'set' the rest of the car takes as the initial 'bump' input passes. It's not as simple as that of course but it is a good place to start from when trying to figure out what is going on.

Yep.

I had a look through your old damper threads (such a shame that so much of it was wasted dealing with Sucahyo...), there's some great stuff in there. Like: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2515759&postcount=272, I gotta have a proper read of it sometime. And I should do some testing with low spring rates, yeah maybe my "dampers are mostly useless" results are just because the springs are so stiff that the dampers can't do their job. Thanks for the tips!

 

[sukerkin]

A great pleasure to see another enthusiast digging into the mysteries of GT tuning 👍.

 

[Radracing]

Very interesting read 👍 I've always wondered and it wasn't very clear to me. But this clears some things up for me. THX!

 

[mafia_boy]

While it's a good read, it's not really complete so to speak. Allow me to explain.

To start, you don't give us what cars you tested in these damper tests. Weight affects a lot of the actions of what each car does when fitted with the FC Suspension due to it's default damper settings being a set standard across nearly every car, be it FR, FF, MR/RR or AWD, usually at 7/7 or 8/8 for Bound/Rebound. To top it all you don't provide a control run to base it all off.

Same with Track Selection, you don't let us know where you tested. It could be Citta Di Aria, or Trial Mountain, or Nurburgring, but how are we to know if you don't tell us?

I can tell you from my experience that damper settings DO matter. In drag racing, you need to have that movement in the suspension to allow the car to squat and take off quickly without too much wheelspin (yes, even with TCS we still can spin!) so the driving wheels bound rating is adjusted to allow for this suspension movement. In Top Speed runs with FF's, I find that it's better to run them with as little wheel movement as possible so dampers get a 10/10 and the rest of the suspension gets stiffened aswell.

We've all gone about different ways and come about with different results, along with results we wouldn't have expected, and that's why we keep playing and pushing the boundaries of each car. But I encourage you to go into it a bit more and check on things such as the difference different damper settings make on launches and braking distances. 👍

 

[nomis3613]

While it's a good read, it's not really complete so to speak...

Sure. After finding out (thanks Sukerkin) that my dampers were being made useless by too stiff springs, it's back to the drawing board! And you make some excellent points, I'll make sure I mention which cars and tracks were used.

Digging through an old thread, I saw the idea of using the Caterham since you can easily see the suspension working. This is such a great idea, I'll be using that as part of my testing.

 

[Dotini]

Sukerkin is very wise in his ways. I've learned a lot from him. On many of my setups I mainly tune springs and dampers, and leave camber and toe at default settings.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[sukerkin]

:blushes at the kind words:

Thank you, gentlemen.

I can't claim any special genius in this field, just lots of reading {studying how real world suspensions work and are tuned for racing} and thousands of hours of testing and experimenting to see what worked in-game and what didn't {including some failed mathematical models }.

One thing that I am always at pains to point out is that, as well as being something of a Black Art, suspension tuning is also very personal i.e. what suits one driver will not suit another. That is as true in GT as it is on any real race circuit.

So the biggest tip that any of us Binary Mechanics can give anyone is, that if something makes the car faster for you, then that is the right thing to do, even if it breaks the accepted 'rules'.

 

[nomis3613]

Hi, I've totally rewritten the opening post. Thanks for your replies, they have been a great help. All comments are welcomed!

 

[sukerkin]

Excellent to see your investigations continuing and deepening.

Thanks too for linking to that experiment I carried out so long ago ... five years! My word! I'll print that out as I don't think I kept a copy 👍.

 

[Alltidxx]

5) Should rebound be 3-4 times bound, like the scrolling text says?
I have found that even if the rebound setting is slightly higher than the bound (and the bound is set correctly), the wheel will not hang in the air after a bump. I do not believe the difference is 3-4 times, though, more like 2-3 clicks.

You demonstrate clearly from point 3 that you understand well how dampers work but I think above paragraph is confused.

The higher the value the higher the resistance. Higher damper value will give slower pitch/compression movement. Higher rebound dampers will give slower travel back to original position.
Main reason for wanting higher resistance in rebound dampers is because it gives calmer cornering characteristics to the car. During braking the rears will rebound and the front will compress. Second half of the turn the front will rebound and the rear compresses (especially for RWD). Having a damper that "pushes away" faster or as fast as it compresses can render instability when cornering.

Having said that, I find that a faster rear rebound is quite useful before the corkscrew at laguna seca where the braking is immediately preceeded by coming over a hill at speed which can mean that both rear wheels loose contact with the road for a moment. Suffice to say that trying to brake with only the front wheels and not doing it in a perfectly straight line will easily wind you up in the barriers. In other games it is possible to adjust fast and slow damp values but in GT4 there is only one, so it becomes tricky as certain tracks how to set up the dampers for overall best performance.

 

[nomis3613]

Hi, yeah I'm constantly learning GT4's little tricks and already I think that post I made just over a month ago isn't quite right!

You demonstrate clearly from point 3 that you understand well how dampers work but I think above paragraph is confused.

I have found that even if the rebound setting is slightly higher than the bound (and the bound is set correctly), the wheel will not hang in the air after a bump. I do not believe the difference is 3-4 times, though, more like 2-3 clicks.

I was more talking about bump response than weight transfer during cornering. Agreed, there is no "magic ratio" between bound and rebound (at the moment I'm starting them at the same initial value and not always ending up at rear being 2-3 more than front. Again, I could easily be convinced if there is a better method out there.

The higher the value the higher the resistance. Higher damper value will give slower pitch/compression movement. Higher rebound dampers will give slower travel back to original position.

This is true for the movement of the car (pitch/dive) but I believe that higher dampers actually make the weight transfer happen earlier (based on my understand of real-life theory). Softer dampers mean the suspension takes more time to "soak up" the weight moving forward, whereas a more rigid setup means the weight transfer will happen more instantly.

Main reason for wanting higher resistance in rebound dampers is because it gives calmer cornering characteristics to the car. During braking the rears will rebound and the front will compress. Second half of the turn the front will rebound and the rear compresses (especially for RWD). Having a damper that "pushes away" faster or as fast as it compresses can render instability when cornering.

Having said that, I find that a faster rear rebound is quite useful before the corkscrew at laguna seca where the braking is immediately preceeded by coming over a hill at speed which can mean that both rear wheels loose contact with the road for a moment. Suffice to say that trying to brake with only the front wheels and not doing it in a perfectly straight line will easily wind you up in the barriers. In other games it is possible to adjust fast and slow damp values but in GT4 there is only one, so it becomes tricky as certain tracks how to set up the dampers for overall best performance.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I'll definitely keep a lookout whether higher rebound makes the car more progressive during transients.

It's always tricky when some effects sometimes have the reverse effect than you would normally expect. For example in trying to reduce exit understeer in FWD, sometimes -ve front toe is better (decreases loss of grip towards exit for ackerman-esque reasons I don't understand. But then sometimes +ve front toe is better (better accelerating traction).

 

[Alltidxx]

This is true for the movement of the car (pitch/dive) but I believe that higher dampers actually make the weight transfer happen earlier (based on my understand of real-life theory). Softer dampers mean the suspension takes more time to "soak up" the weight moving forward, whereas a more rigid setup means the weight transfer will happen more instantly.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by weight transfer happening earlier but this is how I think of it: Weight transfer happens when you accelerate or deccelerate or change direction at speed. The resistance of the suspension will determine how deep the car will pitch for X amount of force (downforce and/or weight transfer). The resistance of the dampers affect at what rate that pitch will occur. Weight transfer happens when it happens, settings for dampers and springs will then deside how the car reacts. In other words, if you for exampel run an overly soft suspension, the dampers will determine how fast you will bottom out, because you will bottom out unless you stiffen the springs or use packers. See?

 

[nomis3613]

Thanks! My understanding is a little different (please correct me if I'm wrong!).

Using the example of a car braking at a rate which will transfer 100kg of contact force from the front tyres to the rear tyres. Lets say the spring rates are set so this will cause the front to dive 50mm. (I'll ignore that the pitching of the car actually causes the the Centre of Mass to move, cos that makes things more complex). Keep in mind that spring force is caused by suspension displacement, and damper force is caused by suspension velocity:

car brakes > high centre of mass means car wants to rotate (braking dive) > front suspension starts to compress > at this stage, the spring displacement is not enough to fully resist the compression, so then there are 2 possibilities, based on damper rate...

1 hard dampers: there is an upward damper force resisting front suspension compression (damper bound). Every force must have an equal and opposite reaction, where does this come from? The tyres! (think of it like you're pushing a heavy bookshelf across carpet. If you can brace yourself against a wall, then you can provide greater force by pushing against the wall. In this analogy, the bookshelf is the 100kg of mass transfer, "you" is the damper resisting compression and the wall is the tyre bracing against the ground) So if the tyre is providing this reaction force for the damper, it must have a higher contact force, so the weight transfer has happened quickly.

2 soft dampers: there is only the spring force opposing the front suspension compression, so the car is free to rotate (pitch) until there has been enough suspension travel (spring force) to stop it. Again, this spring force causes a higher contact force at the tyre, but since the spring force is related to suspension displacement, this takes time to build up. Thus the weight transfer happens more slowly.

After either 1 or 2 > suspension reaches a "steady state", where the front end has dived all of the 50mm.

Since the suspension is not moving any more, there is no damper force, so everything is caused by spring stiffness. So I totally agree that the total amount of dive under brakes is only related to spring force. It's just that I think the stiffer damper causes slower suspension movement during the transient, which (counter-intuitively) means earlier weight transfer.

Sorry if my explanation is confusing! And I'd be keen to hear if you think I've misunderstood it.

 

[Alltidxx]

Ummm, sure...

"Earlier" weight transfer though? Don't you mean faster or slower? Well if you mean earlier, you've lost me. I think the only way to understand is to first clearly define what is what and go from there but I don't have the energy. You might very well be right for all I know then

 

[nomis3613]

Ummm, sure...

"Earlier" weight transfer though? Don't you mean faster or slower?

Hi, yeah faster weight transfer was what I was trying to say.

 

[Alltidxx]

Yes then, stiffer dampers or stiffer springs will mean faster weight transfer 👍. Stiffer settings resulting in worse grip but better manouverability.

 

[nomis3613]

Hi,
A bit off topic...but...

I'm starting to think that the only settings which affect steady state (eg mid-corner) grip are camber, downforce and sometimes rear toe-out.

Perhaps spring rates, damper rates, front toe, stabilisers do not affect the basic under/oversteer balance. So our tuning of springs, dampers, stabilisers etc is only about tuning the transients, body roll, bump response and effects of braking/accelerating.

What do you think?

 

[mafia_boy]

It's not just those factors nomis. You have to factor in all of the following:

• Spring Rate
• Damper Bound/Rebound
• Camber
• Toe Angle
• Stabilisers
• LSD
• Gearbox Ratios

Why am I including the LSD & gearbox you ask? Well it has to do with the power delivery of the motor through the drivetrain and it's effects on the car, if you do things at a higher rpm you have a better chance of grip or wheelspin and the strength/weakness of the LSD allows for the car to rotate or straighten under acceleration or deceleration.

 

[nomis3613]

Ahhh...sorry, didn't explain myself very well...here goes again...

What I'm talking about is steady-state mid corner grip- the f/r grip balance of the car without any acceleration (throttle, braking, yawing, rolling, etc etc). Kind of the stance of the car, to which all these other effects get superimposed in "real" cornering.

Anyway, my "everything I know is wrong???" post came out of testing why RR cars reduce entry roll-oversteer with stiffer rear stabilisers. But for most cars, stiffening the rear should increase oversteer.

So I jumped into a civic on SM tyres at High Speed Ring. Ran baseline tests with stabiliers at 3/3, then tried stiffer front stabilisers (5/1), lastly stiffer rear (1/5). Textbook theory says that the stiffer front will cause understeer, stiffer rear will cause oversteer...but what actually happened is
FF TEST (CIVIC)
stiffer front: less "floaty" steering just before braking marker, a tiny bit more understeer (very minimal)
stiffer rear: less "lumpy" diagonal pitching once brakes are released (pitching gave the impression of turn-in, but it was actually body movement masking the understeer), no noticeable change in f/r balance

Hmmm...not exactly textbook answers, so I tested an FR Monaro (again SM tyres at High Speed Ring). Note, with the baseline setup the Monaro felt like it didn't want to turn while the weight was on the front axle. It was far more steerable during acceleration, where the rear would hold a high slip angle to allow better overall balance and adjustment of line- in fact I found I was braking really early, then back on the throttle just before the apex.
FR TEST (MONARO)
stiffer front stabiliser: more precise steering response. very minimal increase in understeer
stiffer rear: There was less body movement as the weight was transferred rearward (braking > throttle), but somehow it felt like it took longer to settle after the transition. very minimal extra understeer

MR TEST (SPEEDSTER TURBO)
stiffer front: more precise steering response. no noticeable change in balance
stiffer rear: less diagonal pitching as brakes released, very minimal increase in understeer

THOUGHTS
So none of this really matches the often quoted "Understeer cure: stiffen rear stabiliser. Oversteer cure: stiffen front stabiliser". (how long have I been living in this fantasy land, happily believing this was true?!!) And I thought any changes in overall balance were very minimal anyway, considering that stabilisers were changed from 5/1 to 1/5. Certainly not enough change to make it a very useful tuning tool for overall balance. So, I have a few theories, if you could please share your thoughts to help me avoid wasting time testing silly theories:
1) I'm too hamfisted as a driver to properly notice the changes between setups! (I won't be offended, I'm the first to admit I struggle to get consistent lines in testing)
2) Something about my test method is wrong. Are the stabilisers too soft overall for such a smooth, high speed track (normally I tune for bumpy tracks and use minimal dampers to improve bump response)? Could my spring (1/2 way), damper (6 all round), ride height (1/2 way) settings etc be skewing the results and causing strange results for different stabiliser settings?
3) The textbook stabiliser theory only applies in very specific circumstances in GT4, often there are other factors determining the effects of the stabiliser settings? (in which case, I think it is a bit misleading to quote this theory in tuning guides because it will rarely be the case)
4) Something else?

What do you think?

 

[nomis3613]

*bump*
I'd be really interested in your thoughts on this, thanks.

 

[Scaff]

*bump*
I'd be really interested in your thoughts on this, thanks.

Please do not bump a thread again.

Its not acceptable here at GT Planet, if someone has something to add then they will find the thread and post in it.

If you have new information or content to add then please feel free to do so, however do not bump a thread just for the sake of it.


Scaff

 

[PF]

Please do not bump a thread again.

Its not acceptable here at GT Planet, if someone has something to add then they will find the thread and post in it.

If you have new information or content to add then please feel free to do so, however do not bump a thread just for the sake of it.


Scaff

Come on Scaff, that's a bit harsh. This user has put many hours of testing into this thread (and a few others) and they're full of good content. IMHO you've written the tuning bible, I don't think it's fair to knock a bloke bumping a thread who's genuinely interested in advancing GT4 tuning just cause he wants to keep it on page 1. Just consider some of the rubbish that pollutes pg 1 (though it's fairly clean at the moment).
It's not like he's saying 'so i herd you liek the 787B lol lol', he posts really good content and think he should be encouraged.

If you have new information or content to add

Have you read through this thread Scaff? I have, and incidentally think Simon's theories are a load of ****. However, we must keep the debate going. I'd like to hear your point of view.

 

[Scaff]

Come on Scaff, that's a bit harsh. This user has put many hours of testing into this thread (and a few others) and they're full of good content. IMHO you've written the tuning bible, I don't think it's fair to knock a bloke bumping a thread who's genuinely interested in advancing GT4 tuning just cause he wants to keep it on page 1. Just consider some of the rubbish that pollutes pg 1 (though it's fairly clean at the moment).
It's not like he's saying 'so i herd you liek the 787B lol lol', he posts really good content and think he should be encouraged.

Have you read through this thread Scaff? I have, and incidentally think Simon's theories are a load of ****. However, we must keep the debate going. I'd like to hear your point of view.

I don't set the rules, simply enforce them.

GT Planet has a strict no bump policy, as such I can't turn a blind eye to it, in exactly the same way that no AUP issue is ignored.

I could have issued the member a formal warning via PM, that however would have remained on his membership record. As such a polite warning in thread leaves no such record and gets the message across just as well.


Regards

Scaff

 

[nomis3613]

Thanks PF, I appreciate the support!

I didn't really care about the bump warning, In fact, I was about to apologise for any wrongdoing. Until this:

GT Planet has a strict no bump policy, as such I can't turn a blind eye to it, in exactly the same way that no AUP issue is ignored.

I could have issued the member a formal warning via PM, that however would have remained on his membership record. As such a polite warning in thread leaves no such record and gets the message across just as well.

An official "no bump policy"??? Where??? There's nothing about it in the AUP. And since bumping is (rightly or wrongly) widespread on forums in general so I had no idea I was doing anything wrong, I think your messages have been harsh treatment.

So give me an "formal warning" if you like. I don't care. I thought this was a friendly place, so I'm really surprised to get these posts from a Mod. If I ask that we move on and get this thread back to the topic of dampers and steady-state mid corner grip, will that be considered a further offence

 

[Scaff]

Thanks PF, I appreciate the support!

I didn't really care about the bump warning, In fact, I was about to apologise for any wrongdoing. Until this:

An official "no bump policy"??? Where??? There's nothing about it in the AUP. And since bumping is (rightly or wrongly) widespread on forums in general so I had no idea I was doing anything wrong, I think your messages have been harsh treatment.

So give me an "formal warning" if you like. I don't care. I thought this was a friendly place, so I'm really surprised to get these posts from a Mod. If I ask that we move on and get this thread back to the topic of dampers and steady-state mid corner grip, will that be considered a further offence

It is not specifically mentioned in the AUP, just as nothing appears in the AUP regarding double (or any form of multiple) posting, neither are acceptable here at GT Planet.

We can't list every single item in the AUP without it becoming impossible to read, use and enforce. Which is why the following is a part of the AUP...

You will, if asked by a representative of the forums, cease posting any content.

...however you seem to not be able/happy/willing to accept someone doing you a favour so have it your way its now a formal warning.


GT Planet is a friendly place, however that does not mean that we do not have rules nor that those rules will not be enforced.

You seem to be taking what is a minor issue (and in the scale of things the staff have to deal with on a daily basis it is minor), that was dealt with using the method that would impact on a members status here the least and blown it out of proportion.

Many a mod would have gone straight for the formal warning, I didn't and to be perfectly honest you have (both) made me regret doing you a favour (after all as a member of staff I can't ignore a BUMP, when we do not allow them).

The sarcastic comment regarding getting a warning for bringing the topic back on track is also not going to do you any favours either, oh well as a formal warning your posting conduct is now firmly on all the staffs radar (formal warning generate an automatic thread in the private staff forums and remain a part of your membership record) rather than being a minor footnote in a thread.



Scaff

 

[Robbks]

What I'm talking about is steady-state mid corner grip- the f/r grip balance of the car without any acceleration (throttle, braking, yawing, rolling, etc etc). Kind of the stance of the car, to which all these other effects get superimposed in "real" cornering.

After studying Scaff's tuning guide over the last few days and putting it into practice with a number of my own cars, THIS ^^ is still the area I have not been able to get any difinitive progress on.
I can get the majority of my cars to handle any way I want on entry/ exit/ braking, etc.
BUT if a car has a tendency to understeer/ oversteer in mid-corner (constant throttle) it seems that you just need to drive around it through transferring weight, by earlier/later braking/acceleration. These characteristics may simply be built in to the modelling of each individual vehicle.

i.e my '03 M3 CSL is perfectly neutral through mid-corner, constant throttle, as i'm sure is a real-life M3.
but my old ('87, i think?) Nissan 300ZX is a under-steering pig under these conditions. I can get it to turn in nicely and accelerate out cleanly on sharp-ish corners, but long, constant radius corners, it just pushes wide on constant throttle.
Changing my driving style to suit the car on these corners (later braking to a slower speed, turn tighter and accelerate hard) suits the car but does not feel fast or smooth.

and if anyone can shed some light on what the physics modelling of the game actually does in these situations or can point us to some other setting discussion that I have not found yet, that would be great.

(i have tried various combinations or relevant settings to change this balance to no avail. but i'll keep trying anyway)

 

[nomis3613]

BUT if a car has a tendency to understeer/ oversteer in mid-corner (constant throttle) it seems that you just need to drive around it through transferring weight, by earlier/later braking/acceleration. These characteristics may simply be built in to the modelling of each individual vehicle.

It's great to hear someone having similar experience! Some "workarounds" are different tyre compounds front and rear (but this leads to uneven wear) and aero.

But yeah I think the basic mechanical balance is hard coded into each car (and closely related to weight distribusion, so ballast can also help too).