Example of MoTeC data analysis

  • Thread starter ALB123
  • 316 comments
  • 54,153 views
** please note ** I'm not really trying to determine anything about the Veyron, simply demonstrate how the probably variables might interact.

@ALB123 Okay, so technically speaking, the original Veyron set a record at 253.81mph (113.632 metres per second). According to standard equations for Drag, at that speed a Veyron, at sea level (Ehra-leissen as a town is ~63m above sea level), with an air pressure of 100kPa, and at 15°C is experiencing 5802.176 N of resistant force thanks to drag. In order to overcome this drag, it requires 895.08 PS (metric Horsepower). SSRX at 12 noon is 27° from memory... so if we simply change the air temperature to 27°, the PS required to hit that speed drops to 859.28... or flipped over it would reach 257.36mph assuming everything else stayed the same.

Assuming PD use the same relatively simple equation for determining drag... they would include...

Air Temperature - We see that PD display the air temperature of the circuit at the start of the race, so let's assume they do factor this in to air pressure and therefore air resistance, in which case they need the following two things as well...
Air Pressure - I've assumed 100kPa - PD could use a constant, or a local average? this is required for Drag force.
Specific gas constant - This is a constant, I'm assuming PD base this on 'Dry' Air, adn therefore the value would always be the same... it would vary if we were talking about humid air for instance....

from these three things we get Air Density, so
Air Density - as above
Relative Velocity - i.e. the cars speed, although it's relative to the air the car moves through, so a head wind, or tail wind would have an effect. (5 mph tailwind takes the 859.28 PS above down further to 825.75 PS).. however the game doesn't appear to factor in windspeed... so this is just the car speed.
Drag Coefficient - 0.36 according to Bugatti when the car is hunkered down.
Frontal Area - 2.07m²

I would say this is not difficult, and I'm pretty sure that PD factor all this stuff in. The question of environmental conditions does mean that SSRX can give a different top speed to other tracks -- for instance if all fake tracks are considered to be at Sea Level for instance. They may use a constant Air pressure across all tracks, they might give each it's own air pressure, hell.. it could even be dynamic!

So, given that I think this would give a reasonable calculation... what else could the game be doing? The answer is probably, lots. But I'm focusing now on Aero-limited top speed.

What is that top speed? It's the speed measured by a real-world car, that will most probably have been at a different altitude, atmospheric pressure, temperature, probably with a wind-speed vector of some-sort.. and these are just the variables that affect the Aero calculation.

Where am I going with all this? Nowhere really, but @YZF it's all very well and good to say it's simple to achieve an accurate speed, but actually, it isn't. The more variables you factor in the harder it is to arrive at a value set in the real-world, because you have to make sure they all relate to each other properly, and to do that, you kind of need to factor in as many variables as you can... especially if you want it to be scaleable. If you simply set an equation for a car that says Vmax = 250mph The only thing you are simulating is the top speed (over any distance, over any time, in any state of tune, any gearing, any track, any conditions, , any wheel size, any surface, any tyres, any gradient, any slipstream)... and you're setting it to match a real-word value that was arrived at by the laws of physics using a massive amount of natural variables. You can fudge it, by having a table of values for every car, that sets waypoints for a time/displacement curve... but again, those points only simulate those points... the more you have to fudge, the more accurate the game may appear, but the less of a simulation it will be. As I've stated before, I think PD ad GT get the respect they do from manufacturers because PD attempt to do the job very realistically, but for whatever reason (hardware limitations ;)) they don't arrive at the right answer...

Decided to do some further testing.

SSRX back straight, Stock Veyron, 245 mph to 36mph in 7th gear coast. First at 20°C, then at 27°C... deceleration curves were virtually identical. I therefore don't think the game uses air temp in it's air density calculations, and as such probably only uses a constant for air density in it's drag calculations.

edit: Also, RS over CS gave about 4mph benefit

edit II: Same circumstances... 150mph to 250mph with RS tyres on takes 5.334 s longer than with CS.
 
Last edited:
Lunar Roving Vehicle '71 at Lunar Mission I. I guess this car suffers not from the 200-300 km/h issue...LOL. You can imagine also this track has no GPS data. :D
 

Attachments

  • LunarMissionI.jpg
    LunarMissionI.jpg
    84.5 KB · Views: 17
YZF
I browsed some youtube videos and found another one, doing 0-300 km/h with Mercedes Benz SL 55 AMG. So I made some runs in GT6 and here are the results:

0-300km/h: 36.9sec (GT6, Sport Hard tyres)
0-300km/h: ~51 sec (Real Life)

I also decided to test tyre influence for 200km/h - 300 km/h tests, as some users tried to make a big deal out of it. So here are the results:

200-300km/h: 22.9sec (Comfort Hard) - worst tyre in game
200-300km/h: 22.7sec (Sport Hard)
200-300km/h: 22.4sec (Sport Soft)
200-300km/h: 21.4sec (Racing Soft) - best tyre in game

Between Sport Soft and Comfort Hard tyre, there's half a second difference, and between real life and GT6 there's about ~12 sec difference.


Video I took as comparison. Not ideal, but you get the general impression:



Sorry, I've no idea about the SL55 AMG.. but at the same time you have no idea of the circumstances of the video above... it may have been up a gradient for instance... not to mention it's got 190000km's on the clock and might be passed its best.

edit: also, magazine figures look to differ.

edit II: since the mod's have been in to sweep up, these were the magazine figures I was referring too. Seem much closer to the in game test than the YouTube video.
0to300test.png
 
Last edited:
YZF
I browsed some youtube videos and found another one, doing 0-300 km/h with Mercedes Benz SL 55 AMG. So I made some runs in GT6 and here are the results:

0-300km/h: 36.9sec (GT6, Sport Hard tyres)
0-300km/h: ~51 sec (Real Life)

I also decided to test tyre influence for 200km/h - 300 km/h tests, as some users tried to make a big deal out of it. So here are the results:

200-300km/h: 22.9sec (Comfort Hard) - worst tyre in game
200-300km/h: 22.7sec (Sport Hard)
200-300km/h: 22.4sec (Sport Soft)
200-300km/h: 21.4sec (Racing Soft) - best tyre in game

Between Sport Soft and Comfort Hard tyre, there's half a second difference, and between real life and GT6 there's about ~12 sec difference.
Is it not also a physics flaw for the 200-300 km/h time to be 1.5 seconds slower on CH vs. RS? How much wheelspin is there after 200km/h in real life?. At 300 km/h that 1.5 second difference in time represents 125 metres on the track, longer than a football pitch. A 27" diameter tire has a circumference of 85" or so meaning the CH tire would have had to overspin 57 times in 22 seconds or more than 2.5 times per second. I can't believe that is simulated properly either unless someone can prove otherwise.
 
Is it not also a physics flaw for the 200-300 km/h time to be 1.5 seconds slower on CH vs. RS? How much wheelspin is there after 200km/h in real life?. At 300 km/h that 1.5 second difference in time represents 125 metres on the track, longer than a football pitch. A 27" diameter tire has a circumference of 85" or so meaning the CH tire would have had to overspin 57 times in 22 seconds or more than 2.5 times per second. I can't believe that is simulated properly either unless someone can prove otherwise.

Who knows... perhaps the different tyre grades have different deformation characteristics, or different levels of sticktion, or perhaps the tread depth of the Comfort tyres makes a difference to their circumference.

Anyhow... since this is a thread regarding the MoTeC software, and not yet another thread for people to complain about the games physics engine.. here's some more colourful pictures. I'm just learning how it all works at this stage.

- I used the Track Editor to get rid of the slightly arbitrary sections the software generates, and instead set splits to match the in game sectors (measured and calculated on a previous run using the recorded 'Beacon' times).....

qwe1.jpg


- and then set a Maths function to take the sum of the absolute Long and Lat G readings (displayed in m/s² because I prefer it as a scale to simple G's). Then set the display of the track to display the out-put of that function in a fetching blue gradient... the darker the area the greater the combined effect of G is on the car... I'm kind of working towards a tyre wear analysis later... anyway, this is how it looked... (Brands in the Viziv)

qwe2.jpg


- and also, having defined the same sectors as the game uses, I can now use the eclectic data from the timing sheet, instead of messing around with my various spreadsheets... also set the darker colour for <=5% off best... man, I'm really not that consistent... it's why I like the eclectic (or Theoretical Best as I used to call it) so much...

qwe3.jpg


- also tailored the channel report a bit, because I like to know what the average sector speeds are... need to get the layout right though, but having the max and min speeds helps too, which I never had with my old system..

qwe4.jpg





I stand by what I said earlier in the thread, this is a great addition to GT.
 
I've seen 1 km drag driven by the same car, R33 GTR with close to 1000HP, it did 1st run on daily driven street tires, then they fitted a drag radial tire ( NITTO ) and the quarter mile time alone was quicker by good amount. I can imagine, rolling drag from 3rd or 4th gear would be the same, as the R33 GTR spins on 4th up shift when fitted with street tire and didn't with a NITTO. I think I saw this on old UK performance video, might be REDLINE.

I tested the C6 ZR1 with max PP - flat floor, no oil change 999HP/1206kg / max aero at 20 ( GT6 ) at SSRX, and on CS - rolling drag right from the start of the lap to reach top speed to remove inconsistency with standing start at start line. The time difference to reach 387kmh is huge.

RH : 387kmh time 21.1s reached at about 2 car length before 2100M Marker, top speed on level surface, steady until the 1st banked corner( 3rd sector ) - 400kmh - over 400kmh on the downhill.

CS : 387kmh time 29s flat, reached at about 3 car length before 2900M Marker, top speed on level surface, steady until the 1st banked corner ( 3rd sector ) - 392kmh - can't even touch 400kmh on the downhill.

And yet again, I got this from that "someone" :lol:

Wow, Im even surprised YZF is actually still trying to pass his Bullish as Legit. I swear some people say the dumbest ish. Hes trying to say all the cars made 300km/h on the straight, but the video shows otherwise, is he for real?


The straight on the track they did the test on is not long enough for most of the cars to get up 300km/h, all cars were in the banked corner at the time of hitting 300km/h, they held 300km/h out of the bank and did the 300-0 test. The video shows one of the cars hitting 300km/h and the banked corner it can be seen clearly.

Just look at some photos of the event

Untitledlol.png


Check out all 49 pics

Serie Beschleunigungs- und Bremsentest 0-300-0 km/h 2011: Bugatti Veyron Super Sport im Highspeed-Test (Bildergalerie, Bild 5) - sport auto

Video Link again

Video of the 0-300-0 km/h Test done by "Sports Auto" showing banked corner used


So YZF is ignoring the LFA data and still pushing his nonsense, he moved on now to the SL55

Here is the data I found on the car

Autocar magazine

The SL55 was tested against a Lamborghini Murcielago, Porsche 911 GT2 ...heres the results

0-62mph:
Lambo = 3.6
Porsche = 4.0
Merc = 4.6

0-124mph:
Lambo = 11.4
Porsche = 13.1
Merc = 13.7

0-186mph:
Merc = 32.5
Lambo = 34.2
Porsche = 40.9

mercedes SL55 beats both at 0-186mph...this can only be explained by the mercedes' fabulous aerodynamics, which also help it achieve a top speed around the Nardo track in Italy of 202mph (325km/h)

this is of course with the 155mph limiter removed

0to300test.png


YZF GT6 Time is 0-300km/h is 36.9 sec

lol He thinks its supposed to take 51 seconds because he posted a video of some joe blow accelerating to 300klm in a SL55, and the time stamp on the video is 51 sec, BUT first off the car doesn't launch until 6 seconds into the video, so thats really 45 seconds, and we don't know anything other than he was probably on a public road. It looks like he had TCS or some type of Stability system on but we dont know. We don't know if it was a hill, beat up engine, bald tires, on a corner (lol)

HOWEVER

I did find the guy did a second run to 280km/h in 32 seconds, Now thats more like it, still a bit shy of the on paper specs but looks to line up perfectly with the GT6 in game run of 36.9. Even still, the pro driver on a closed track did better

[video=youtube;t0PjIX-uUIE]

The PROPER Testing done shows us this

0to300test.png


YZF Just has serious issues with where he sources his information and does not seem to do the proper research needed.

MORE DATA
I did find this, but Im not fond of the source, no info on where the numbers came from & I found they have used bad numbers before (I have examples) but here it is anyways

Mercedes SL 55 AMG (517 PS) lap times and specs - FastestLaps.com

mercquatermile.png




Collecting Site Data

Mercedes SL55 AMG information on SupercarWorld.com
 
Do either of you, @MatskiMonk or @Johnnypenso play any other sims/driving games? Have they successfully reproduced cars 0-200mph times? As we've established, the problem isn't so pronounced at lower speeds. Unfortunately, I have never played another driving game that tries to be serious with its physics. Now, I don't want to turn this into a catch-all for physics complaints in GT6, but I'm curious how the other respected sims hold up here.

Just for laughs I took the 458 in AC to the drag strip. They have only two compounds, street and semi-slick so I used street. You can't mod cars in AC so it's stock all the way. Did 3 or 4 runs and averaged around 10.5s 0-200 and the standing km in 20.5s. Drag strip isn't long enough to test top speed I'd have to take it to the Nurb but it was approaching the redline around 300 km/h at the end of the drag track.
 
Just for laughs I took the 458 in AC to the drag strip. They have only two compounds, street and semi-slick so I used street. You can't mod cars in AC so it's stock all the way. Did 3 or 4 runs and averaged around 10.5s 0-200 and the standing km in 20.5s. Drag strip isn't long enough to test top speed I'd have to take it to the Nurb but it was approaching the redline around 300 km/h at the end of the drag track.

458 Italia : 0 - 120mph / 193.1kmh : 8.9s, 0-400m at 10.9s @ 132.5mp, top speed 202mph.

I doubt AC got the weight of the car correct - usually lower than real life, that might be the tire :)
 
Last edited:
458 Italia : 0 - 120mph / 193.1kmh : 8.9s, 0-400m at 10.9s @ 132.5mp, top speed 202mph.

I doubt AC got the weight of the car correct - usually lower than real life, that might be the tire :)
Where's the link? Was that the Speciale or the Italia? AC is the 2009 Italia and appear to have an additional 75 kgs over the dry weight not under. I didn't use any form of launch control or traction control so that may affect times as well and this real world test says 0-200km/h in 10.4s. Supercars.net also says 10.4s Wikipedia says 10.8s. It sounds like the 8.9s is either a different version or with better than stock tires.
 
Where's the link? Was that the Speciale or the Italia? AC is the 2009 Italia and appear to have an additional 75 kgs over the dry weight not under. I didn't use any form of launch control or traction control so that may affect times as well and this real world test says 0-200km/h in 10.4s. Supercars.net also says 10.4s Wikipedia says 10.8s. It sounds like the 8.9s is either a different version or with better than stock tires.

2012 458 Italia ( same power / torque as 2009 ), Car & Driver Test :) and tested car weight is a lot heavier than dry weight + 75kg, try 1600+kg.

Most of the site listed figure from factory claimed figure - 10.4s 0-200kmh. automobile-catalogue.com figures also often used which are often inaccurate as they are based on estimation.
 
...
- and then set a Maths function to take the sum of the absolute Long and Lat G readings (displayed in m/s² because I prefer it as a scale to simple G's). Then set the display of the track to display the out-put of that function in a fetching blue gradient... the darker the area the greater the combined effect of G is on the car... I'm kind of working towards a tyre wear analysis later... anyway, this is how it looked... (Brands in the Viziv)

View attachment 263058

The correct way to sum longitudinal and lateral forces is summing then quadratically, as they are perpendicular to each other. Then you have the total acceleration a = sqrt(glong^2+glat^2)

Cheers.
 
Is it not also a physics flaw for the 200-300 km/h time to be 1.5 seconds slower on CH vs. RS? How much wheelspin is there after 200km/h in real life?. At 300 km/h that 1.5 second difference in time represents 125 metres on the track, longer than a football pitch. A 27" diameter tire has a circumference of 85" or so meaning the CH tire would have had to overspin 57 times in 22 seconds or more than 2.5 times per second. I can't believe that is simulated properly either unless someone can prove otherwise.

Actuall tyres do have a spin during the constant high speed driv, even more so when accelerating. I don't remember exact figures, but I think it's somewhere about 5% or so. So in fact, this difference between tyres, imho simulated pretty accurately! And this would show what we always knew - PD with Kaz at the front, tries to simulate real life as accurately as possible. And we can see that in GT5 and also in lap times and cornering speeds in GT6.


Sorry, I've no idea about the SL55 AMG.. but at the same time you have no idea of the circumstances of the video above... it may have been up a gradient for instance... not to mention it's got 190000km's on the clock and might be passed its best.

It may be gradient or it may be not? The power at 200k km may be not at it's best or it may be very close to stock engine condition...(I remember Top gear did dyno test and the difference was like ~5HP or so. This is a Mercedes afterall, not some cheap Korean box). But seeing how the difference in this test is very similar to differences in all other tests, I'd say this is more or less the same ballpark. Nothing 'unexpected'.

What is unexpected though, is your screenshot. Notice that Porsche GT2, which is lighter car than SL55AMG, has basically the same HP, and yet it is much slower to 300. Doesn't it look suspicious?

On the other hand, you can clearly see that even in your test, the top speed is 325km/h, while in GT6 it's unrealistic 360km/h+...
 
Last edited:
YZF
Actuall tyres do have a spin during the constant high speed driv, even more so when accelerating. I don't remember exact figures, but I think it's somewhere about 5% or so. So in fact, this difference between tyres, imho simulated pretty accurately! And this would show what we always knew - PD with Kaz at the front, tries to simulate real life as accurately as possible. And we can see that in GT5 and also in lap times and cornering speeds in GT6.
I was wondering if it's simulated accurately though. They are off by 10%+/- on the top speed and it's possible that they are also off on the slip data as well, and possibly the two are also related.
 
The correct way to sum longitudinal and lateral forces is summing then quadratically, as they are perpendicular to each other. Then you have the total acceleration a = sqrt(glong^2+glat^2)

Cheers.

Yeah I'd pondered if that would be the case, more like a force vector. Most of my time was spent adjusting the interface, dropping in the equation only took seconds so I'll run that tonight 👍 Thanks for the useful on topic advice :D

YZF
What is unexpected though, is your screenshot. Notice that Porsche GT2, which is lighter car than SL55AMG, has basically the same HP, and yet it is much slower to 300. Doesn't it look suspicious?

On the other hand, you can clearly see that even in your test, the top speed is 330km/h, while in GT6 it's unrealistic 360km/h+...

Why would it look suspicious? AMG's are known for their Torque... the Porshe is quicker to get away because it's lighter and has wider tyres on the driven wheels.. the AMG pulls it back later because it's already got it's mass moving, has a ton of torque available low down, and is no longer traction compromised. All of which is kind of irrelevant as I'm more inclined to trust a magazine test than a shaky YouTube video... one is more likely to represent the values that PD have/were given for the performance of the car - and the other is nothing more than anecdotal. I'm not really saying you are right or wrong to be honest... just that you seem keen to disbelieve the game based on what I'd consider to be somewhat uncomparable or invalidated data --- you may well be right, I'm not particularly defending PD.. more trying to defend the concept of accurate comparisons and method.

Personally I'd rather this thread was kept for useful information pertaining to the MoTeC software feature... rather than another GT vs. Real thread, there are plenty of those already. I'm sure there are lots of people that would find this feature interesting, but don't know where to begin... they don't need to be trawling through pages of magazine tests and YouTube videos to find useful advice - having said that it might be useful for people who are looking at the data using MoTec numbers for comparison at least posted some screen shots or graphs so other can see how information can be interpreted.

edit to avoid double post:

I was wondering if it's simulated accurately though. They are off by 10%+/- on the top speed and it's possible that they are also off on the slip data as well, and possibly the two are also related.

The sample data that comes with the software includes a real-life run at Calder park. You can see a clear difference between driven and non driven wheel speeds (even on the straighter sections). This data also includes tyre temperature for 3 points across the tyres at the front, and a single point in the rears, and if my memory serves me correctly (I'm not in front of it at the moment) the tyres travelling faster are the ones that are hotter - which I guess indicates slip.
 
Why would it look suspicious? AMG's are known for their Torque... the Porshe is quicker to get away because it's lighter and has wider tyres on the driven wheels.. the AMG pulls it back later because it's already got it's mass moving, has a ton of torque available low down, and is no longer traction compromised.

Actually when you are going flat out, it's HP and weight that matters most. Torque - not so much. It will matter ofcourse, but I'd say weight matters much more than Torque in acceleration. So if GT2 is lighter, it should get faster 0-200 and then SL could catch up. But pass it by ~10sec...looks suspicious.

All of which is kind of irrelevant as I'm more inclined to trust a magazine test than a shaky YouTube video... one is more likely to represent the values that PD have/were given for the performance of the car - and the other is nothing more than anecdotal. I'm not really saying you are right or wrong to be honest... just that you seem keen to disbelieve the game based on what I'd consider to be somewhat uncomparable or invalidated data --- you may well be right, I'm not particularly defending PD.. more trying to defend the concept of accurate comparisons and method.

That's ok. You don't have to trust that video (which correlates to other tests, but still it's your opinion). Then take the data from those 0-300-0 tests which I gave earlier. Those tests where done 3 years in succession, testing various cars on the same track with huge long straights (4km +). They look very real for me. And again, their results are similar to videos, several of which were posted and also to GT5 tests
 
Last edited:
YZF
Actually when you are going flat out, it's HP and weight that matters most. Torque - not so much. It will matter ofcourse, but I'd say weight matters much more than Torque in acceleration. So if GT2 is lighter, it should get faster 0-200 and then SL could catch up. But pass it by ~10sec...looks suspicious.

But the Porsche is faster to 200, it is lighter and wider tyres, and is only down a little on power. And no, sorry but at 200-300 the engine is not using it's thrust to overcome the weight of the car, it's using it to overcome Aero drag (remember velocity is cubed in this formula), and predictably enough, that is where the more slippery car (the AMG) makes it's time back. Sorry, I'm very keen for this to not go off topic, but it seems to be as though you seeing what you want to see in the numbers. I'm not going to get drawn on this further, because I actually don't care about the end result, more the method... you on the other hand have created another thread (as you earlier linked) to discuss this issue, so I think it's best for you to continue such postings in your own thread. Not trying to get stroppy with you, just the mod's have already had to cleanse the thread already 👍

On topic, If I have time tonight, I think a graph showing how the various rotational speeds of different compounds interact during acceleration, coasting, and braking, and how that relates to the reported vehicle speed in game. It was my opinion that the cumulative amount of slip gave the game it's wear rate for a tyre. I could be wrong :lol:
 
I don't think it is the main purpose of this thread, but it is related because Motec may be used to indicate GT6 flaws.

I think YZF is right about SL55 AMG. I have runned it on SSRX, both on GT5 and GT6 and I have found the following results:

table GT6.jpg


Stock, the SL55 from GT6 (3rd column) is quite faster than in GT5 (2nd column), which is stock, too. It is faster both on speed as in acceleration.

Looking at the setups, I realized that the GT6 model is slightly more powerful than in GT5, something about +9HP, and the suspension setup was different, too. Then, I power limited the GT6 version and changed the suspension setup to match GT5 the most. The result is on 4th column. As we may see, now the gmax on GT6 is closer to GT5, but the max speed is even higher.

To test the dependence on tire modelling, I tried with Comfort Hard on GT6 and the result is on 5th column. As we may see, gmax now is lower than in GT5, but max speed (vmax) is still higher. I conclude that tire compound affects much acceleration, but has too small effect on max speed.

Explaining the difference: I think the difference may be due to differente drag modelling or may have something to do with the redline region: In GT6, the RPM enters much more in the redline region than in GT5, which could give some additional power. Other non considered effects could cause the difference.

The GT6 drag data I extracted from Motec, by doing an online race in order to start in a standing grid with no opponents.

EDIT: Wrong table for acceleration figures. Right table in post below.
 
Last edited:
@NandoRock

0-400 Stock difference: 2.275 secs
0-1000 Stock difference: 2.305 secs

0-100km/h Stock difference: 2.149 secs
0-200km/h Stock difference: 2.194 secs

Interesting, that's a pretty linear descrepancy. The massive share of the difference occurs in both the first 400m and 100km/h, then only increases by a small percentage as the distance and speed climbs. To me that says 1st-2nd gear anomoly, or traction issues?
 
Last edited:
But the Porsche is faster to 200, it is lighter and wider tyres, and is only down a little on power. And no, sorry but at 200-300 the engine is not using it's thrust to overcome the weight of the car, it's using it to overcome Aero drag (remember velocity is cubed in this formula), and predictably enough, that is where the more slippery car (the AMG) makes it's time back.

Ok, lets take it from different perspective. Aren't you a little bit suspicious that in your test results table, Aston Martin and Ferrari have more or less the same horsepower, they weigh less, yet their time is 25-30sec longer !! I mean, there is something wrong, isn't it? Lambo has 100Hp more, weighs less, yet it is also slower??? Are you 100% sure that there's no typo with MB's time?

I had these thoughts, and I made some little test again, using the tool mentioned in the title of this thread: MOTEC (this thread is about the findings using Motec, isn't it?)

So I took the only other car, available in GT6, from this test and here are the results:

Aston Martin Vanquish V12

0-100km/h: 5.3sec vs 5.6sec (real life)
0-200km/h: 15.9sec vs 17.4sec (real life)
0-300km/h: 43.9sec vs 55sec (real life)
Top Speed: 342km/h vs 316km/h (real life)


I wonder how would you interpret this data? Everything is ok as well? Or suddenly that single SL55AMG from that test may be incorrect? :)


Sorry, I'm very keen for this to not go off topic, but it seems to be as though you seeing what you want to see in the numbers. I'm not going to get drawn on this further, because I actually don't care about the end result, more the method... Not trying to get stroppy with you, just the mod's have already had to cleanse the thread already 👍

Why are you pushing this false idea that this is suddenly offtopic? No, it's not. We are discussing the data from the Motec and the tests made by Motec and what we found out and our conclusions. It's about GT6, it's about Motec. Are you trying to hide the data results (flawed) which you don't like? You can always not read them, ignore them, but there are other people who aren't blinded by GT's supposed "perfectness" and can talk about everything, not only good things. And maybe making more noise about this issue we will get patch with a fix, instead of burying face in the sand and pretend that everything is ok, and very real.


Btw anyone got Vanquish in GT5? I wanted to test it against GT6, but it's not available in Dealership to buy, can't get it... :/
 
@NandoRock

0-400 Stock difference: 2.275 secs
0-1000 Stock difference: 2.305 secs

0-100km/h Stock difference: 2.149 secs
0-200km/h Stock difference: 2.194 secs

Interesting, that's a pretty linear descrepancy. The massive share of the difference occurs in both the first 400m and 100km/h, then only increases by a small percentage as the distance and speed climbs. To me that says 1st-2nd gear anomoly, or traction issues?

I used no traction control on both games. I think difference of traction modelling in both games could affect acceleration, but could not affect much the final speed.

I need to say also that starting with a high powered car with no need to counter steering even using comfort hard tires is something unrealistic, but I'm sure everybody is aware of this, and it even helps on doing drag analysis.

I have to say, folks, this is all very interesting, but in the end, GT6 is a RACE simulator, not a CAR simulator, so, a difference of 10% on max speed is not something that affects much the way you RACE.
 
View attachment 263483

Stock, the SL55 from GT6 (3rd column) is quite faster than in GT5 (2nd column), which is stock, too. It is faster both on speed as in acceleration.

Looking at the setups, I realized that the GT6 model is slightly more powerful than in GT5, something about +9HP, and the suspension setup was different, too. Then, I power limited the GT6 version and changed the suspension setup to match GT5 the most. The result is on 4th column. As we may see, now the gmax on GT6 is closer to GT5, but the max speed is even higher.

0-100km/h in 2.1sec? Are you sure there is no mistake? F1 cars are doing 0-100 in ~2sec...
 
YZF
0-100km/h in 2.1sec? Are you sure there is no mistake? F1 cars are doing 0-100 in ~2sec...
I'm not saying there is no mistake. I'm saying this can be much irrelevant, I'm most worried with the lack of leaderboards on GT6, with not earning credits on arcade races, with the 500 car garage limit. If I wanted the most realistic racing game I'd play only rFactor or Assetto Corsa. One of the reasons I play GT6 is fun, not only because how much realistic it is.
 
I'm not saying there is no mistake. I'm saying this can be much irrelevant, I'm most worried with the lack of leaderboards on GT6, with not earning credits on arcade races, with the 500 car garage limit. If I wanted the most realistic racing game I'd play only rFactor or Assetto Corsa. One of the reasons I play GT6 is fun, not only because how much realistic it is.

What I ment is are you sure there is no mistake in your testing methodology? Maybe you miscalculated something doing this specific test?

The general conclusion is that GT6 simulates 0-100km/h quite accurately. Sure SL55AMG can't get 0-100km/h in ~2sec in real life, so it shouldn't be able to do that in GT6 either...?
 
Last edited:
The results should be first contrasted with the same car in different tracks, and at least with one track with GPS records, before using SRRX as a test base for the real world performance comparisons. It's known that this track have some oddities that others don't experience, and it's a fictional track thought for pure speed, so probably PD have adjusted the environment physical values to a theoric top speed perfect scenario (air presure, wind, asphalt quality, etc).

Just in case...
 
YZF
What I ment is are you sure there is no mistake in your testing methodology? Maybe you miscalculated something doing this specific test?

The general conclusion is that GT6 simulates 0-100km/h quite accurately. Sure SL55AMG can't get 0-100km/h in ~2sec in real life, so it shouldn't be able to do that in GT6 either...?

Actually, there is a mistake, thanks for the tip! As the car starts before the starting line, the time is miscalculated. I have added all extra times now counting from the time the car starts running.

As we can see, the acceleration figures are quite similar to GT5 now, the problem remains only at max speed and max longitudinal g.

Cheers.

TableGT6_2.jpg
 
The results should be first contrasted with the same car in different tracks, and at least with one track with GPS records, before using SRRX as a test base for the real world performance comparisons. It's known that this track have some oddities that others don't experience, and it's a fictional track thought for pure speed, so probably PD have adjusted the environment physical values to a theoric top speed perfect scenario (air presure, wind, asphalt quality, etc).

Just in case...

We have tested other GT6 tracks, and the difference between SSRX and other tracks is negligible:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/example-of-motec-data-analysis.320038/page-3#post-10252301

There's also a real world Nurburgring vs GT6 Nurburgring video on previous page.
 
Thought I'd give something a try...

qwe5.jpg


Speed (The Magenta Line - in km/h), Aero drag Force in (kgf the ... umm.. orange? line), and the power required to overcome that aero drag (the Blue line, in PS).

This was just for a top speed run in the Veyron at SSRX. Bare in mind, it's a mix of units on the same scale, but what it does show is how the aero drag builds with speed, and how much of the Veyrons power it's using to defeat that drag. These are calculated numbers, not something that is actually logged by the software, so the absolute values may be different but the shape of the curves would remain pretty much the same.
 
Last edited:
Back