Example of MoTeC data analysis
- Thread starter ALB123
- 316 comments
- 54,047 views
- 5,161
- Massachusetts
When you exported the best laps, you made sure you selected "Export Data for MoTeC i2 Pro", right? Because you can also select "Export to PS3 System" and that's not going to do it.
Once you open up the i2 software, you want to select "Circuit Project". Then go up to FILE > OPEN LOG FILE and navigate to your thumb drive (or wherever you might have copied the log files from your usb thumb drive to your HDD if you did so).
That's all that you need to do. Are you still having trouble?
- 481
- Minne-snow-ta
- Nukedogger86
- nukedogger
- 5,161
- Massachusetts
It definitely does work. Go back through this post and especially look at the screen shots from Jimmy Howlett and @MatskiMonk. There is a lot of changing you can do within the program. If you'd like to see other information on the TRACK REPORT tab, for instance, just right-click > Properties and then start adding or removing whatever data values you'd like to see - what color you'd like to see them in, etc.. MatskiMonk definitely seems to have a good handle on this i2 software. Jimmy Howlett does too, but sadly, he got banned...
Now, I don't know if you need to bring your data into a "Drag Project" or if a "Circuit Project" would work just fine for narrowing down 0-60 & 1/4 mile times... I've only used the Circuit Project thus far. If you do use Drag Project, please let us know what made you choose one over the other.
Thanks!
Now, I don't know if you need to bring your data into a "Drag Project" or if a "Circuit Project" would work just fine for narrowing down 0-60 & 1/4 mile times... I've only used the Circuit Project thus far. If you do use Drag Project, please let us know what made you choose one over the other.
Thanks!
I finally managed to get Vanquish in GT5 and made a test between GT5, GT6 and Real Life (data from the 'german table')
I also tried to measure 0-300 with GT5 version, and its very approximate, but it's about ~59sec (give or take 1-2sec)
Aston Martin Vanquish V12
0-300km/h: 55sec (Real) - vs - 59sec (GT5) - vs - 43.9sec (GT6)
I also tried to measure 0-300 with GT5 version, and its very approximate, but it's about ~59sec (give or take 1-2sec)
Aston Martin Vanquish V12
0-300km/h: 55sec (Real) - vs - 59sec (GT5) - vs - 43.9sec (GT6)
- 16,415
- United Kingdom
@Jimmy_Pop @ALB123 It's all about workspace as far as I can tell, and the drag space, I'm not sure it's actually any better for drag. You only get the same data channels and maths options, and other than that it seems to be less flexible. Hopefully this weekend I'll get in some wheel-time, do a few runs and have the time to look at MoTeC properly... this week's been a 'mare.
I noticed that default gear ratios for GT5 Vanquish are too long, i.e. when you engage 6th gear, the speed even drops (Viper 96' sindrome). Imho this is not the case in real life, so I slightly adjusted gear ratios to make it look more realistic. Also the car in GT5 is used one, so I forgot to overhaul the engine (I guess one should do such thing, not only oil change).
So after these slight improvements to make the car more realistic, I got 0-300 in ~54sec and top speed close to 314 km/h ! I'd say VERY GOOD SIMULATION. In GT5 that is.
So after these slight improvements to make the car more realistic, I got 0-300 in ~54sec and top speed close to 314 km/h ! I'd say VERY GOOD SIMULATION. In GT5 that is.
- 15,311
- TRAPPIST-1g
- ProjectWHaT
umm...why is the one from GT5 on 5th while GT6 is on 6th?I finally managed to get Vanquish in GT5 and made a test between GT5, GT6 and Real Life (data from the 'german table')
I also tried to measure 0-300 with GT5 version, and its very approximate, but it's about ~59sec (give or take 1-2sec)
Aston Martin Vanquish V12
0-300km/h: 55sec (Real) - vs - 59sec (GT5) - vs - 43.9sec (GT6)
- 8,698
Max speed achieved in 5th in GT5, 6th in GT6.
- 136
- São Paulo-SP
- NandoRockSP
I noticed that default gear ratios for GT5 Vanquish are too long, i.e. when you engage 6th gear, the speed even drops (Viper 96' sindrome). Imho this is not the case in real life, so I slightly adjusted gear ratios to make it look more realistic. Also the car in GT5 is used one, so I forgot to overhaul the engine (I guess one should do such thing, not only oil change).
So after these slight improvements to make the car more realistic, I got 0-300 in ~54sec and top speed close to 314 km/h ! I'd say VERY GOOD SIMULATION. In GT5 that is.
Simulation is not only about max speed and 0-300 times, however.
Explanation on my next post, below that one
- 1,239
- Italy
RB Fan Car on RS and max downforce - 21G on Eau Rouge. 
- 2,741
- Michigan
- mcluvin93hatch
Could the human body even survive that ?
Also, does - or has, anyone looked into using this to see if 'track temp' has any effect on a vehicles performance ?, like 0-60 at night @ SSR7, versus 0-60 in a desert @ Willow Springs ?
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 302
- Sydney
- GTP_Ezza75
This MoTec software is a nice expansion & addition to GT6. Thank you PD.
Hope future game updates can incorporate car suspension data with MoTec analysis & telemetry.
GT6 The Real Driving Simulator
GT6-MoTec The Real Auto-engineer Simulator
Hope future game updates can incorporate car suspension data with MoTec analysis & telemetry.
GT6 The Real Driving Simulator
GT6-MoTec The Real Auto-engineer Simulator
cutmeamango
(Banned)
- 672
- Brazil
Wrong, the graph shows lateral G forces, and the peaks are not sustained, lasting fractions of a second.
You may read this to inform yourself: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/ame/media/Section II.2.7 Sustained Acceleration Exposure.doc
Last edited:
- 8,698
Sustained lateral forces aren't good for us, because they segregate the blood flow, and our cardiovascular system is laterally unsymmetrical.
Transverse (forward / backward) forces we are most tolerant to, because it doesn't perturb bloodflow as much. Untrained we can withstand around 15g, with training the limit is in excess of 40g. We are physically evolved to deal with vertical forces, but blood pressure in the brain is easily (and quickly) affected by such forces.
I don't know what the limits are laterally, but the timescales are probably much longer than for vertical forces, because as long as the heart is being fed blood, pressure will stay up and the brain will function normally.
Transverse (forward / backward) forces we are most tolerant to, because it doesn't perturb bloodflow as much. Untrained we can withstand around 15g, with training the limit is in excess of 40g. We are physically evolved to deal with vertical forces, but blood pressure in the brain is easily (and quickly) affected by such forces.
I don't know what the limits are laterally, but the timescales are probably much longer than for vertical forces, because as long as the heart is being fed blood, pressure will stay up and the brain will function normally.
- 4,809
- Bulgaria
If one man weighs on average 75kg at 21G he will have to hold 1575kg.
Now lie down on the ground sideways and I will put on you VW Golf which weighs only 1400kg for only one second,and if you are still alive I will believe you.
Last edited:
- 1,239
- Italy
That's interesting - I also assumed no man could make through Eau Rouge like that. (still kinda skeptical to be honest)
Here's the braking data.
Here's the braking data.
- 8,698
That's not what it means. These are inertial forces, due to acceleration. By that analogy, F1 drivers routinely "hold" in excess of 300kg in corners (260 sustained). It is as though you yourself weighed that much, not that that's what's sat on top of you. The load is distributed throughout the body, not just on the small surface area exposed to external objects, reducing local stresses significantly.
The 21g figure is not sustained; such jerk forces are easily dealt with if prepared for. A 30 mph crash is about 30g! That's reduced to 20g with a "stretching" seatbelt. Roughly.
21g lateral jerk is more like landing on your side (in your wrap around racing seat) at 11 mph, i.e. falling from a height of about 1.2 m / 4 ft. That assumes a compliance of about 2.5", or 6 cm, over which to achieve that deceleration, offered by the squishiness of the body and seat combined.
Last edited:
- 4,809
- Bulgaria
What are tha lateral G forces in F1?
"'Formula One drivers are some of the most highly conditioned athletes on earth, their bodies specifically adapted to the very exacting requirements of top-flight single-seater motor racing.
All drivers who enter Formula One need to undergo a period of conditioning to the physical demands of the sport: no other race series on earth requires so much of its drivers in terms of stamina and endurance. The vast loadings that Formula One cars are capable of creating, anything up to a sustained 3.5 g of cornering force, for example, means drivers have to be enormously strong to be able to last for full race distances. The extreme heat found in a Formula One cockpit, especially at the hotter rounds of the championship, also puts vast strain on the body: drivers can sweat off anything up to 3kg of their body weight during the course of a race.''
F1 3,5G
21G is six times more, and during this time you will have to turn the wheel and carefully handle with throttle pedal.
Last edited:
- 8,698
260 kg for a 75 kg driver implies 3.5g, sustained.
I was wrong, 21g is an 11 mph impact. That's falling from 1.2m, or 4ft. A bit uncomfortable without precautions. EDIT: that's an average force of 15 kN applied over 0.024 seconds for our 75 kg driver, who would have to "dissipate" 900 J (0.2g of TNT) of energy in the process, somehow.
It looks like the X2014 Fan can achieve 10g sustained. The limits are unknown, and drivers don't yet use specialist equipment, e.g. "g-suits".
Last edited:
- 4,809
- Bulgaria
Can you imagine during the impact to handle carefully the steering wheel and throttle pedal
- 8,698
Your legs are braced, and you're holding onto the wheel, with at least one arm braced. The only difficulty is the neck, but that could conceivably be braced also whilst still allowing some movement.
Remember the idea is not to move relative to the cockpit in order to "stay in control". A suspended cockpit would go a long way to alleviating some of the issues too.
This is simply uncharted territory, exciting stuff.
- 16,415
- United Kingdom
G's are acceleration acting on a mass... Think of it more like that, than just an equivalent mass. It's why I use the metres per second per second (ms^-2) units for 'G'. Same spuds different gravy, it just makes it clearer in my head.
- 8,698
21g is a significant challenge. But nothing in that video affirmed that it is impossible to withstand for a brief moment, with the proper precautions. Remember also that lateral and vertical forces are felt differently and can be withstood to different levels and lengths of time.
Notice they quote 5g+ when the reality is closer to 3.5g continuously. The same applies to the 21g figure, at turn in for Eau Rouge, where F1 cars achieve well in excess of 5g laterally, partly because of the extra vertical load due to the dip in the track surface (which also places significant vertical force on the driver, at the same time).
If these X cars could be made, no doubt the downforce could be dialed back a touch, but you know that, if it were "legal", F1 teams would be putting their drivers under even more stress by generating more downforce, so they can go faster.
The key reason for limiting downforce is to limit cornering speeds, which is known to limit any damage should anyone come off the circuit. Current cornering forces were too much to cope with race after race until teams figured out how to adapt to them. The same is true for aircraft.
It's great that this analysis is possible. I'd like to see what kind of forces are possible with the "real" racing cars in the game on RS tyres. That's probably the bigger reality gap.
Notice they quote 5g+ when the reality is closer to 3.5g continuously. The same applies to the 21g figure, at turn in for Eau Rouge, where F1 cars achieve well in excess of 5g laterally, partly because of the extra vertical load due to the dip in the track surface (which also places significant vertical force on the driver, at the same time).
If these X cars could be made, no doubt the downforce could be dialed back a touch, but you know that, if it were "legal", F1 teams would be putting their drivers under even more stress by generating more downforce, so they can go faster.
The key reason for limiting downforce is to limit cornering speeds, which is known to limit any damage should anyone come off the circuit. Current cornering forces were too much to cope with race after race until teams figured out how to adapt to them. The same is true for aircraft.
It's great that this analysis is possible. I'd like to see what kind of forces are possible with the "real" racing cars in the game on RS tyres. That's probably the bigger reality gap.
- 359
- Hong Kong
- PowderGuy
