Displaying Imperial Units

[CyKosis1973]

Hi, this might seem like a daft question, but I'd like to set all displayed units in the game to imperial. In short, I'd like MPH and lbs/ft. Currently I have MPH and kgfm.

I have already been into the options menu and set it to "Miles" and set it to "XMB - English". I've also been into System Settings in XMB and made sure that was set to "English (UK)" too. In fact I've set them to other things and set them back to "English (UK)" and "Miles", still only displays MPH and kgfm.

Is there another 'regional' or 'units' setting somewhere I don't know about..??

Thanks in advance,
{Cy}

 

[Famine]

No. lbft isn't used in GT5 at all, which is ridiculous as "hp" is a derived unit expressed as lbft/s. If you use hp, you must use lbft; if you use PS/CV/Ch, you must use kgm or Nm; if you use kW you must use Nm or J/rad.


You can convert kgm to lbft rougly in your head by multiplying by 7. You'll be a little off, but you'll get a decent estimate.

 

[CyKosis1973]

That's very annoying. kgm means little to me in the real world, but then I am a little long in the tooth.

Thank you kindly for the reply, I'll endeavour to carry out the sums in my head henceforth...

{Cy}

 

[huskeR32]

I'm at work right now, so I can't go double-check this, but I'm pretty sure my cars all show ft-lbs of torque. Is this a PAL vs NTSC difference?

 

[Famine]

Sort of. The US version shows hp and lbft exclusively, while other versions all use kgm for torque. The Japanese version I recall uses PS exclusively, but the ROTW version allows you to choose local units for power - at least hp, PS and CV that I know of and possibly kW for the Australian version but I wouldn't swear to it.

 

[Wall_Rider]

Speaking as such, why oh why can't vehicle weights be displayed in pounds? That's like what; a few extra keystrokes of programming code??

 

[CyKosis1973]

Speaking as such, why oh why can't vehicle weights be displayed in pounds? That's like what; a few extra keystrokes of programming code??

Ironically, after having bleated about wanting imperial units for power and torque, I'd rather have weight in kg. I'm British, what can I say

{Cy}

 

[Jmac279]

Kilograms to pounds is pretty easy to do in your head as you just multiply by 2.2 to get a rough idea.

1000 kg = 2200 lbs (2000 + 200)
1500 kg = 3300 lbs (3000 + 300)
1425 kg = 3135 lbs (2850 + 285)

It's not exact, as the multiplier is actually 2.20462442, but it'll get you to within 10 lbs.

 

[White & Nerdy]

That's what I do, but it's annoying. The last GT to display weight in pounds was GT2. Ever since, to the best of my knowlege, it's always been kilograms, even in the NTSC version. Kinda fails.

 

[another_jakhole]

That's what I do, but it's annoying. The last GT to display weight in pounds was GT2. Ever since, to the best of my knowlege, it's always been kilograms, even in the NTSC version. Kinda fails.

Now THIS is when we americans as a whole definitely fall short. imo kg should be the universal standard of car weighing. No, probably not. I can't believe we were taught NOT the metric system like some places teach students to fluently speak english as a second language. This world....

 

[Jmac279]

The problem is that mass (kg) and weight (lbs) are two different things and, when calculating acceleration, momentum, etc. mass is the correct number to use.

Of course, PD specifically uses the term WEIGHT (which is Newtons (N) in metric) on the information page :facepalm:

 

[Famine]

The problem is that mass (kg) and weight (lbs) are two different things

They're the same things, expressed by different standards. Of course they can also be different things, as lb can be used to express force too - but shouldn't be since force is, more correctly, mass * acceleration - in a different application. This can confuse things. Both kilograms and pounds are a definition of the amount of "stuff" in an object (mass) and not the force it produces (weight) as a result of acceleration.

Ultimately, with cars we find it easiest to express mass as weight simply because they don't leave the surface of the Earth and there is almost no variation in weight for a given mass as a result. It's somewhat tricky to explain why a 1000kg/2204lb car "weighs" 9810N in one place and 9790N in another, or why it actually matters.

 

[Jmac279]

They're the same things, expressed by different standards. Of course they can also be different things, as lb can be used to express force too - but shouldn't be since force is, more correctly, mass * acceleration - in a different application. This can confuse things. Both kilograms and pounds are a definition of the amount of "stuff" in an object (mass) and not the force it produces (weight) as a result of acceleration.

Ultimately, with cars we find it easiest to express mass as weight simply because they don't leave the surface of the Earth and there is almost no variation in weight for a given mass as a result. It's somewhat tricky to explain why a 1000kg/2204lb car "weighs" 9810N in one place and 9790N in another, or why it actually matters.

Well, when you add downforce, lift, variances in gravitational pull at different locations, etc. it can vary widely. That 1000 kg car may weigh 2500 lbs with downforce, but that doesn't mean it will affect its acceleration or momentum, save for the difference in rolling resistance caused by the additional force (assuming no difference in Cd).

 

[Famine]

Well, when you add downforce, lift, variances in gravitational pull at different locations, etc. it can vary widely.

Downforce and lift are weight (force) not mass. Variance in the planetary gravitational field I already accounted for.

That 1000 kg car may weigh 2500 lbs with downforce

The 1000kg/2204lb car will still have the same mass - 1000kg/2204lb - but the additional force will result in an increase on scales reading in kg/lb. If you posit a 300lb increase, the scales will read 1135kg/2500lb. This isn't because either kg or lb are units of weight but only because by convention we measure weight wholly interchangeably with mass for things that do not leave the Earth's surface.

This is exactly why lb shouldn't be used as a measure of weight - and one of the applications in which it is used confusingly and incorrectly (vehicle downforce/lift). kg and lb are a measure of "stuff" (mass), not force (weight). The "pound force" unit (lbf) - which is a measure of force (weight) along with its friend the "kilogram force" unit (kgf) - is roughly equal to 4.45N and is the result of the acceleration due to gravity acting on the mass of one pound (lb) on the surface of the Earth (1g).

1 kg = 2.204 lb = mass
1 kgf = 2.204 lbf = 9.81N = weight

 

[Jmac279]

I think it's become clear that we're arguing based on how things are done in our respective locations because I've never seen pounds used to measure mass (nor have I seen the unit lbf) and I've got almost 5 years of physics classes under my belt.

 

[CyKosis1973]

I think it's become clear that we're arguing based on how things are done in our respective locations because I've never seen pounds used to measure mass (nor have I seen the unit lbf) and I've got almost 5 years of physics classes under my belt.

I appreciate the norm is to request pictures "or it didn't happen". However, as I can't provide a picture of lbf, I'll give you the next best thing, a wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)

Just because you haven't seen it, in your 5 years of physics classes, doesn't mean it didn't happen...

{Cy}

 

[Famine]

I've got 8 years of physics classes under my belt and was brought up in an era of interchangeable Imperial and metric units in a predominently avoirdupois country.

Expressing (down)force as pounds isn't wrong, it's just not strictly accurate since the unit is pound-force (lbf). 1 lbf = 4.45N (or so), just as 1 kgf = 9.81N (or so) - handily, since 1 kg = 2.204lb (or so), both being units of mass.

By convention though, people express downforce in pounds - and kilograms, which should set your physics brain on edge. What they mean when they say this is "the equivalent amount of force exerted by the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface by a mass of n pounds/kilograms". It's just easier not to bother.

 

[Jmac279]

I appreciate the norm is to request pictures "or it didn't happen". However, as I can't provide a picture of lbf, I'll give you the next best thing, a wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)

Just because you haven't seen it, in your 5 years of physics classes, doesn't mean it didn't happen...

{Cy}

I never said it "didn't happen" or "doesn't exist," but what I'm learning/have learned in school didn't involve using pounds to measure mass, only force, and it's expressed as lbs not lb or lbf.

You guys are apparently from different parts of the globe; different countries teach different things.

I thought he was arguing that mass and weight were the same when he was actually arguing that kg and lb are expressing the same thing.

 

[Famine]

See my post above. In fact, print it out and take it to whomever is teaching you physics.

It is by convention alone that we just say "pound" for force - it's easier than saying "pound-force" or "the equivalent amount of force exerted by the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface by a mass of 1 pound" - but pounds and ounces are merely the avoirdupois equivalent units of the metric/SI gram and kilogram, for mass.


You might notice the subscript f (indicating equivalent force) following mass units in torque units. lbf.ft (pound-force foot) and kgf.m (kilogram-force metre [or meter]). We tend to omit those too, by convention, and refer to pound-foot (or foot-pound), kilogram-metre (or kilogram-meter) or, more simply, Newtonmetre (or Newtonmeter), but that's the place you'll see it most often.

 

[Jmac279]

See my post above. In fact, print it out and take it to whomever is teaching you physics.

It is by convention alone that we just say "pound" for force - it's easier than saying "pound-force" or "the equivalent amount of force exerted by the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface by a mass of 1 pound" - but pounds and ounces are merely the avoirdupois equivalent units of the metric/SI gram and kilogram, for mass.


You might notice the subscript f (indicating equivalent force) following mass units in torque units. lbf.ft (pound-force foot) and kgf.m (kilogram-force metre [or meter]). We tend to omit those too, by convention, and refer to pound-foot (or foot-pound), kilogram-metre (or kilogram-meter) or, more simply, Newtonmetre (or Newtonmeter), but that's the place you'll see it most often.

Not in any of my textbooks. I just double-checked the tables in them to make sure I wasn't just imagining things. No subscript f's at all. Nm or ft-lbs in the books.

If you have this much of a problem with how they teach this in Canada, you're more than welcome to write the Canadian Institute of Power Engineers and let them know that all the information in their textbooks is wrong.

I really don't see why you're getting on my case since we're both saying the same thing in different ways because we were taught the same thing in different ways...

 

[Famine]

If you have this much of a problem...

I don't have any kind of problem.

I really don't see why you're getting on my case...

Nor am I getting on your case.

I'm simply pointing out that lb and kg are units of mass (stuff) whereas lbf, kgf and N are units of force (acceleration of stuff). This is why they are interchangeable with factors and without modifiers, but why you need to modify units of mass to get units of weight/force:

Units of mass: 1 kg = 2.204 lb
Units of force: 1 kgf = 2.204 lbf = 9.81N

1 kg != 9.81N; 1 kg accelerated at 9.81m/s/s = 9.81N
1 lb != 4.45N; 1 lb accelerated at 9.81m/s/s = 4.45N

Weight, in this context, is force - the acceleration of a mass at the Earth's surface. Mass is thus only kg or lb and weight is thus only kgf, lbf - as the equivalent of that mass being accelerated - or Newtons.

You can then move onto torque - lbfft, kgfm or Nm - and from that onto power - lbfft/s (Imperial horsepower - the power required to accelerate 550lb vertically through 1 foot in 1 second against gravity), kgfm/s (metric horsepower - the power required to accelerate 75kg vertically through 1 metre/meter in 1 second against gravity) and kW (the power exerted by a force of 1 Newton moving 1 metre/meter in 1 second).


If you've been taught differently, that's smashing. Don't imagine up an "argument", a "problem" or someone "getting on my case" for no reason whatsoever and simply look at the points expressed. Am I saying you're foolish, the Canadian Institute of Power Engineers are nincompoops and everyone who's ever taught you physics is a cretin? Or am I simply giving you information? Not believing me, or believing it's due to differences in teaching (it isn't - you can derive this stuff yourself) is fine - print it off and show it to your physics teachers if you'll only take their word.

Mass/stuff is kg and lb; Force/weight is lbf, kgf and N - but described as lb through convention; Torque is lbfft, kgfm and Nm - but described as lbft and kgm through convetion; Power is lbfft/s, kgfm/s and Nm/s - but described as hp, PS/CV/ch/pk/your name for horse here and kW through derivation.

 

[Jmac279]

I understood all that stuff the first time you posted it, which is why I posted this ...

I think it's become clear that we're arguing based on how things are done in our respective locations because I've never seen pounds used to measure mass (nor have I seen the unit lbf) and I've got almost 5 years of physics classes under my belt.

I appreciate that you posted that information, but it did genuinely seem like you were getting on my case and had a problem with it (the "print it out" part is what made me think that). Anyways, no harm done; chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

 

[Turismo.M.G!]

My brain hurts.....

 

[CLIBBY34]

I don't usually wade into this sort of debate online, but I do get wound up over this one due to my line of work I'm afraid Famine is quite correct, it still applies to Canadians

The use of just 'pound' (lb) when referring to forces is technically incorrect, but is in relatively common usage around the world. It is usually people being "lazy" and not wanting to have subtext hanging around.

If a sentence / document etc. is referring to both mass values (lb, sometimes labelled lbm for clarity) and force values (lbf), how do you identify them if they are both labelled as 'lb' Neglecting the 'f' would cause more than a little confusion!

 

[Wall_Rider]

Kilograms to pounds is pretty easy to do in your head as you just multiply by 2.2 to get a rough idea.

1000 kg = 2200 lbs (2000 + 200)
1500 kg = 3300 lbs (3000 + 300)
1425 kg = 3135 lbs (2850 + 285)

It's not exact, as the multiplier is actually 2.20462442, but it'll get you to within 10 lbs.

I know; I keep a handwritten conversion sheet handy...I just wanted the option for pounds, that's all...If the game was universally metric I'd accept it, but if I can get miles instead of km, why can't I get pounds?

And just for uniformity's sake, I keep it on km