Ferrari F40, why so bad?

[TrievelA7X]

I'm not going to respond to most of that, I'll just be re-explaining the things you misconstrued or twisted, not sure which. And then you'll just do it again, and again, and again.
Long story short, what do tires have to do with top speed?
If I can get an otherwise stock GT up to 215 going around Daytona on R3's, it's still unrealistically fast, isn't it? Or does all that extra sticky rubber decrease rolling resistance and increase top speed in your opinion?

 

[G.T.Ace]

215 with a supercar on Daytona with racing tires isnt that unrealistic (did you do it with slipstream?). But i dont know what this has to do with Yamauchi favour the GT over other cars? I would say thats more a problem with the physics engine itself.

 

[Lion-Face]

Long story short, what do tires have to do with top speed?
If I can get an otherwise stock GT up to 215 going around Daytona on R3's, it's still unrealistically fast, isn't it? Or does all that extra sticky rubber decrease rolling resistance and increase top speed in your opinion?

Well, because you have stickier tires, you can corner faster than you normally could, so if your coming off the banking at a higher speed, you'll likely be faster at the end of the straight than someone coming off the same corner at a lower speed.

I totally forgot about Daytona when I looked for a straight long enough for the Ford GT. So I went to Daytona, tried the N3 tires (Stock worn tires for Ford GT) the S1 tires (Stock new tires for Ford GT) and R3 tires for the Ford GT. I went as fast as I could around the track for a few laps to see what the best speed I could get was.

N3's - Approx 180mph
S1's - Approx 195mph
R3's - Approx 203mph

All on pro physics, no changes to setup at all.

Love to know where your getting that extra speed from, cos on a few quick tests, I'm no where near you.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Well, because you have stickier tires, you can corner faster than you normally could, so if your coming off the banking at a higher speed, you'll likely be faster at the end of the straight than someone coming off the same corner at a lower speed.

I totally forgot about Daytona when I looked for a straight long enough for the Ford GT. So I went to Daytona, tried the N3 tires (Stock worn tires for Ford GT) the S1 tires (Stock new tires for Ford GT) and R3 tires for the Ford GT. I went as fast as I could around the track for a few laps to see what the best speed I could get was.

N3's - Approx 180mph
S1's - Approx 195mph
R3's - Approx 203mph

All on pro physics, no changes to setup at all.

I never said I did en exact test. And yes, stickier tires will boost your speed reached on an oval where your car can't get up to top speed. That's the point of it. So it has more chance to reach it's top speed. Hell, maybe it can't reach over 205 on any tires GT5P. But if can reach even 203 on Daytona, it'd almost have to reach well over 205, unless it hits a brick wall within 2 mph.

to know where your getting that extra speed from, cos on a few quick tests, I'm no where near you.

Doesn't matter, all this could be sufficed for those of you that disagree to simply say, "I disagree".
It doesn't come down to foil hats, or retarded jokes.

It's been my experience that in the GT series, certain cars get benefits, and others do not. The PP system is no different from what I can see than the "a-Spec" points system, and it gives certain cars advantages, the same cars that had advantages in GT4.
A prime example would be any 750-800pp race on expert other than Daytona Speedway, where the GT-R and Ford GT are the just about the only cars on the leaderboard, and always fill the top 10. They're just way to much faster.
And no, I don't see why it would be so hard for the guys who can put all the programming into this insanely detailed game, to manage a system where more than 2 cars can compete in a "pp" zone. Do you? Any of you?

 

[888 Tuning]

And no, I don't see why it would be so hard for the guys who can put all the programming into this insanely detailed game, to manage a system where more than 2 cars can compete in a "pp" zone. Do you? Any of you?

Clearly it is hard, otherwise PD would not have been required to alter some cars that were clearly advantaged by the PP system.... or maybe they are simply not talented developers.

Also keep in mind, its not "a PP zone" ... its every PP zone. ie your process must stay equal for every PP zone that the car would be able to compete in, or to look at it from a logic perspective, every point of either weight/tyre/power/downforce or combination of points in these 4 elements, has to correspond almost perfectly with every point of change for every other vehicle and keep in perspective the initial characteristics of each car.. Otherwise you would simply end up with a game where every single car felt the same as every other car.

I dont believe PD's goal is to make all cars equal, but to make all cars able to compete. You will always find certain cars respond better to certain track and point combos. Rarely the same car now dominates every event. In that aspect PD has achieved its goal.

Wasnt this thread about the F40 being so bad, which seemed to be more of a personal opinion that was ultimately not overly supported by the anecdotal evidence of the other members here?

 

[niky]

I never said I did en exact test. And yes, stickier tires will boost your speed reached on an oval where your car can't get up to top speed. That's the point of it. So it has more chance to reach it's top speed. Hell, maybe it can't reach over 205 on any tires GT5P. But if can reach even 203 on Daytona, it'd almost have to reach well over 205, unless it hits a brick wall within 2 mph.

Stickier tires allow you faster corner exit and allow you to get closer to theoretical max. Standard physics will allow you to get much closer still. In professional, even with R3 tires, with standard power, I've never seen a GT, or any other car go over 205 mph. The GT-tuned, yes... but the regular GT is fair game for some of the bigger guns in the game.

It's been my experience that in the GT series, certain cars get benefits, and others do not. The PP system is no different from what I can see than the "a-Spec" points system, and it gives certain cars advantages, the same cars that had advantages in GT4.
A prime example would be any 750-800pp race on expert other than Daytona Speedway, where the GT-R and Ford GT are the just about the only cars on the leaderboard, and always fill the top 10. They're just way to much faster.
And no, I don't see why it would be so hard for the guys who can put all the programming into this insanely detailed game, to manage a system where more than 2 cars can compete in a "pp" zone. Do you? Any of you?

So... should a bunch of computer hacks be more intelligent than racing drivers and longtime members of the FIA?

Take LeMans. The Audi R8 dominated for nearly a decade, despite rules that specified weight, air restrictor size and maximum engine size. After the R8, the R10 dominated because LeMans rules, meticulously studied by the governing body and considered "fair", allowed diesel engines 1.5 liters more displacement, larger air restrictors, and variable geometry turbos.

After a few years of utter domination by diesels, how does the FIA rebalance the rules? Give the diesels smaller gas tanks. Yeah... that'll work a treat. Another year of diesel wins... at least there are now two teams at the top, instead of one blitzing everyone else.

-

Take F1. What series of modern-day F1, besides the present one, has had more than two or three teams with a great chance of winning it all? Despite engine size restrictions, ECU restrictions, etcetera... there are still engines that are more powerful than "they ought to be". The only reason you have so many teams competitive now is because of the mixed-up semi-two-tier system created by the boggled-up implementation of KERS rules.

-

Take the JGTC, and the dominance of the Nissan GT-R over the past few seasons. Last season, it took a ton of penalty weights to finally make the front-running GT-R actually lose a race. And that's a rules-balanced series.

-

Take the WRC. Rules balanced, but even with equal weight and power restrictions, hatchbacks are much faster than sedans over the course. Again, an example of how body-style, center-of-gravity and polar-moment-of-inertia (plus easier suspension packaging) have an effect on how fast a car is in a race compared to an otherwise equivalent car.

Three cars you complain about, the Ford GT, the Clio, and the Integra, all have better inherent weight balance and chassis balance than their competition. The Clio and GT are both mid-engined, which gives them a better polar-moment-of-inertia, and better handling. In the case of the GT and Integra, they both have a better, stiffer, chassis, than most. Though again, the Focus ST is a near-on match for the Integra... simply because Ford got the suspension on that car right (it's better than the Integra's) and the chassis is the stiffest in the front-drive class in GT5P.

The GT-R is, as it is in real-life, faster than most anything in the game. It's faster than the F430 in real life, and faster than the 599 (around corners, at least, and has a better laptime around most tracks). And, being AWD, it's not hampered by throttle-calibration issues with the controller. Complaining that it's fast in game is tantamount to complaining that Nissan made the thing way too fast for its apparent PP rating. Yes, Nissan "cheated". Simply by using a transmission with no perceptible shift-lag and giving a 485 hp engine the torque of a 600 hp one.

-

Take touring car racing. Even with the huge amount of weight penalties given to front runners in the WTCC, you can hardly expect anyone not in a BMW or a Seat Diesel to consistently win. And the diesels here get the same idiotic "pass" that they get in LeMans. Not that I mind seeing diesels in racing, it's just that fair's fair.

-

Take the upper echelons of non-LMP endurance racing... where the Corvette racer dominates... simply because it has one of the biggest motors around, and can build a ton of naturally aspirated, unstressed power. (note, of course, that the Corvette racer, despite sharing parts with the street car, is not identical to the road car.)

-

Most professional motorsports leagues have cars that are "better" than others. There are some things you can't balance out. Even going down to the amateur ranks, this is still true. Take a look at SCCA racing results... there are segments dominated by Hondas... segments dominated by BMWs, etcetera...

The only way to have a series completely and fairly balanced is to make every single competitor drive what is essentially the same car. (try.... NASCAR). And even then, some will be more "equal" than others, not just due to drivers' skill, but in the strength of their suspension and aero packages, on otherwise identical vehicles.

-

If you don't want everyone racing the same car, your system needs to be dynamic. In other words, it has to adjust to what's better. And GT5P doesn't do that. In fact, since PD is no longer updating GT5P, it can't do that. A further problem with PP is that it is calculated in the same way on every track, even though the optimum balance between grip, weight and power changes for every track... in fact... for almost every corner, there's a different combination that is better.

I'm not in the WRS here, but as I recall Famine saying, upon a time, they had trouble balancing out their simulated touring car series in GT4. They couldn't rely directly on power-to-weight and had to fudge the numbers on a per-race basis.

-

Is PP unfair? Again, yes... just like any real life performance-balancing system, it is imperfect.

Does that matter to me? Yes. It means that I'll never beat a well-driven Integra with my Mazda6... and I'll never win a 700PP race with the Z06 (which I do love). That doesn't stop me from trying, though.

Do I go around accusing PD of being biased? Nope. Because I understand, at least, the limitations of such balancing systems.

But: can they do it better? Of course they can. And I hope they do, as it'll make racing more interesting.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Stickier tires allow you faster corner exit and allow you to get closer to theoretical max. Standard physics will allow you to get much closer still. In professional, even with R3 tires, with standard power, I've never seen a GT, or any other car go over 205 mph. The GT-tuned, yes... but the regular GT is fair game for some of the bigger guns in the game.

Well, I just tried it. 204 taking the corner, 205 slamming the wall.
Mind you, that's accelerating from 204 to 205 up a 30 degree bank.
I also took the liberty to try another test, ran in the 800pp event with a stock GT on R3's. I got in another cars draft, accelerated to 207, and pulled out of his draft. Under it's own power, with no draft, it clicked off 208, 209, 210, & 211.
211 under it's own power, with more speed coming had I not had a wall in front of me.
It's not a perfect or optimal test, but it does the trick here. At least 211, my guess would be it's exactly as fast as it was in GT4.

So... should a bunch of computer hacks be more intelligent than racing drivers and longtime members of the FIA?

Yes and No. It's much easier to test and regulate a game you are programming. And I don't think I'd call them "hacks".
Quite simply, they could improve the pp system by making weight count for more pp, power less pp, and tires more pp.
The way the system is now the setup for any given car is almost always the same. Stickiest tires, always lowest weight, and then make the power whatever you can. There's no balance at all, And I don't think it would be hard to improve upon it. It might not be perfect, but just because you can't make something perfect is no reason to give the obvious improvements.

Take LeMans. The Audi R8 dominated for nearly a decade, despite rules that specified weight, air restrictor size and maximum engine size. After the R8, the R10 dominated because LeMans rules, meticulously studied by the governing body and considered "fair", allowed diesel engines 1.5 liters more displacement, larger air restrictors, and variable geometry turbos.(snip)

Excellent point.👍 I'm not asking for it to be perfect, but like I said above, they could easily improve it.

As for certain cars getting performance boosts, you'll never convince me they don't test every car in the game before they release it. Christ, it takes them 5 years to make it. And in all that testing, especially for GT4, do you really believe nobody saw that the GT could go 15mph faster than it's true top speed? There's more cars than the GT involved, and some cars under-performed pretty badly as well, but the GT is the shining example.
Now, given that right before the release it was made public Yameuchi's new GT, and his great love for it, and it being on the cover, tell me how that looks?
If a guy marries a 2nd wife, while going through a bitter divorce, and his 1st wife is granted everything for adultery, and she gets murdered, where do we look? No, I'm not comparing this game to murder, or any crime, but that doesn't mean we should take our thinking hats off, does it?

The last thing, and you might get a kick out of this, is I think another problem is showing in the current 800pp event at Daytona Speedway. Slapping S3's on the back of a Tuned Vette and blasting any other car out of the water. Every other cars either doesn't have the power, the stability, or is the Viper, which just pretty much was barred incompetent in all things competitive racing for GT5P.

Clearly it is hard, otherwise PD would not have been required to alter some cars that were clearly advantaged by the PP system.... or maybe they are simply not talented developers.

Did they change anything? You say they were required as though they did, I do not know if they did, I've only played Spec III online.

Also keep in mind, its not "a PP zone" ... its every PP zone. ie your process must stay equal for every PP zone that the car would be able to compete in, or to look at it from a logic perspective, every point of either weight/tyre/power/downforce or combination of points in these 4 elements, has to correspond almost perfectly with every point of change for every other vehicle and keep in perspective the initial characteristics of each car.. Otherwise you would simply end up with a game where every single car felt the same as every other car.

Yes, that's why at any given "PP", the GT has less power / more weight than most any other car.
Here's an idea, they could try physics that dictate a 550hp GT with a top speed of 205 can't beat the pants off a real-life faster 600hp Ferrari 599 with a top speed of 208, in a straight line at any speed. That's a start.

I dont believe PD's goal is to make all cars equal, but to make all cars able to compete. You will always find certain cars respond better to certain track and point combos. Rarely the same car now dominates every event. In that aspect PD has achieved its goal.

Really? That's not what I see. At all. Check the non car specific time trials.

Wasnt this thread about the F40 being so bad, which seemed to be more of a personal opinion that was ultimately not overly supported by the anecdotal evidence of the other members here?

It is, we should get back to that. My view is I hate the F40 in GT5P, don't know if it's a match for real life or not, never cared for F40's to much in the first place. I did expect it to be a little faster though.

 

[niky]

Pulling out of a draft isn't representative. You still have the momentum boost.

-

I actually can believe that nobody noticed the problem. Simply because of the other examples I gave... the Golf GTi, the Mitsubishi Eclipse GT and the RX8. While you'd have to drive every single car on the big test track to test top speed... it doesn't take more than one lap around a race-course to discover the gearbox problems of the first two, and one look in the garage to discover the power error with the third one (which, thankfully, has been corrected in GT5P... if they're rigging the game... why would they change it back?).

-

As for the murder story... who was Yamauchi's first wife? They had the Ford GT on the cover of GT4, it was Kaz's personal car... and yet... I've driven all the supercars in the game... and while the GT is close, it was nowhere near the best in the game, and certainly raised a ton of complaints about driveability (though I thought driveability was fine).

The Nissan GT-R R35 was a feature car of GT4. And it was horrible in the game. Which probably reflects the fact that it was a prototype, and the prototype R35 was reportedly terrible around the Nurburgring, which is what spurred the huge effort by Nissan to retune it to the way it is now.

As for power... manufacturers' figures aren't always accurate, anyway (again, RX8), and manufacturer figures are often off, depending on SAE corrections and aspirations. Many turbocharged cars make more power in testing than naturally aspirated cars with ostensibly the same power... from looking at Dynojet results for all three cars, it seems that the Ford GT is vastly under-rated... dyno-ing between 471 whp to over 500 on the dynojet. The Vette and Viper corresponding to those in GT5P do between 430-440 whp. 471 is close to the supposed 50 hp difference between these cars, but the odd 525 hp dyno? Hmmm... interesting.

Which would reflect in the performance (since PD does instrumented testing) even if it isn't reflected in the stats... something which many turbo cars benefit from when it comes to PP balancing. I remember when Chrysler had the Dodge Neon SRT-4, the engine was also under-rated.

Not PD's fault. Blame Ford for underestimating the horsepower on the only supercar they've made in the past forty years...

Also... as an interesting aside... the Ford GT in testing has hit 212 mph. Road-going versions are electronically limited to 205 mph.

And, of course, no Gran Turismo has speed limiters... otherwise the R35 GT-R in the game would crap out on Eiger Norwand at just 180 km/h.

 

[Jay]

one look in the garage to discover the power error with the third one (which, thankfully, has been corrected in GT5P... if they're rigging the game... why would they change it back?).

The RX8 claims to be 250PS in the dealership but then you go into quicktune you can see it is 285PS (in GT5P)



BTW I'm not saying they're rigging it.

 

[niky]

The RX8 claims to be 250PS in the dealership but then you go into quicktune you can see it is 285PS (in GT5P)



BTW I'm not saying they're rigging it.

Hmmm... that's weird. At least they're punching the number into the PP... though without any way to reduce power... sigh... hope they finally fix that for GT5...

 

[TrievelA7X]

As for power... manufacturers' figures aren't always accurate, anyway (again, RX8), and manufacturer figures are often off, depending on SAE corrections and aspirations. Many turbocharged cars make more power in testing than naturally aspirated cars with ostensibly the same power... from looking at Dynojet results for all three cars, it seems that the Ford GT is vastly under-rated... dyno-ing between 471 whp to over 500 on the dynojet. The Vette and Viper corresponding to those in GT5P do between 430-440 whp. 471 is close to the supposed 50 hp difference between these cars, but the odd 525 hp dyno? Hmmm... interesting.

Also... as an interesting aside... the Ford GT in testing has hit 212 mph. Road-going versions are electronically limited to 205 mph.

That pretty much sums it up there.
Considering a simple pully swap generates an extra 60 ponies out of the GT, it's hard to tell whether something's been done to one, (pully swap) or not. Most people can't tell a difference except it seems awfully fast.
Let's not forget Ford is the company that makes 500hp mustangs that get smoked by 400hp Vettes.

Now, as for the F40, I drove one today, I did mod it to 700pp with 90% weight, and R3's all around.
Car handles like crap. Understeers like a dump truck, but even that aside, just can't go around corners fast.
I was seeing low 50's (mph) around the first corner, and unless the graphics make that corner look less sharp than it is, I swear my Buick could take it close to that on it's bubbly stock tires. I managed a 1:42.9:tdown:

And it does spin the tires awfully easy for it's weight and power, compared to other cars. And I don't consider 1992 tire compounds to be a factor, because any F40 that would be raced now, 18 years later wouldn't be using them.

 

[myke6699]

That pretty much sums it up there.
Considering a simple pully swap generates an extra 60 ponies out of the GT, it's hard to tell whether something's been done to one, (pully swap) or not. Most people can't tell a difference except it seems awfully fast.
Let's not forget Ford is the company that makes 500hp mustangs that get smoked by 400hp Vettes.

Now, as for the F40, I drove one today, I did mod it to 700pp with 90% weight, and R3's all around.
Car handles like crap. Understeers like a dump truck, but even that aside, just can't go around corners fast.
I was seeing low 50's (mph) around the first corner, and unless the graphics make that corner look less sharp than it is, I swear my Buick could take it close to that on it's bubbly stock tires. I managed a 1:42.9:tdown:

And it does spin the tires awfully easy for it's weight and power, compared to other cars. And I don't consider 1992 tire compounds to be a factor, because any F40 that would be raced now, 18 years later wouldn't be using them.

I can't imagine the F40 with R3s still handles as you said it. I usually drive all the cars in GT5P in stock form (TT mode). Of course that negates the ability to turn off the ABS which we all know the F40 comes without. But I try to imitate the handling by using the recommended N2-N3 and if I'm desperate S1. I never venture anything past S1 for any of the cars in GT5P (yes the Tuned Ford GT included) unless it's for the purpose of getting onto the leaderboard. Of course I do use a FFB wheel (G25) turning off all aids (except the aforementioned ABS) and manual shifting.

The F40 in my recent test around Suzuka using N3s clocked a decent 2:31s. I'm always 4-5 seconds slower than the top time at Suzuka regardless of the cars (when using S2 tires since it's the tires commonly used on the TT leaderboard) so that would translate into 2:26 which in in line with the actual fastest F40 time recorded at the track. On the same occasion using the same tires a Corvette Z06, a Ford GT, a Viper SRT10 and an Audi R8, I recorded 2:30, 2:29, 2:33 and 2:31 respectively while the Nissan GTR was a top of the heap at 2:27 (again that 5 seconds from the actual GTR time at the track which is 2:22).

How would I rate the F40 handling- yes it does understeer but mostly when turning in and as you acclerate out of the turn, you get a lift-off oversteer (exactly as Martin Brundle said in his video of the F40). You do have to slow down quite considerably on very tight corners and not so much on a track like Suzuka although you do need to pay more attention when cornering than you would with the other cars. But where it excels is in the acceleration out of the turn and on medium to long straightaways which you do get a few at Suzuka. You can even do a quick short sprint in between (at the "S" curves) to make up time since the car does accelerate very well. I must add that on a track like Suzuka you seldom use anything past the third gear although you do get to 4th on the few straightaways.

The steering is another strong point of F40 and PD captures that quite well. Neither the FM2 version nor the Ferrari Challenge version quite manage to capture the steering ability of the F40 as well as the Prologue version although I do have to add that I doesn't quite feel as controlled as the more modern Ferraris but it's precise nonetheless (as should you). As difficult it is to navigate the car (in Prologue) using the N3 tires, I feel that it's by far the best representation of how it actually feels- of course this is from reading reviews and literatures on the F40 and not from actually driving one. The S1 tires while easier and faster, does make it feel as if driving on rail and I can't imagine using any of the R type tires with the car. Although I suspect if you're using the PS3 controller be it Sixaxis or DS3, you might want to stick to the stickier compound for enjoyment sake. But if you're using a good to decent wheel and more importantly in this case a good set of pedals since how well you apply the throttle (and the brakes) make a huge difference as to whether you'll enjoy driving the F40 around a challenging track like Suzuka. I'm pretty sure the more practise I put in, I'll be able to at least gain another second although I doubt I'll crack into the high 2:20s.

To conclude it would say that I would agree if someone were to say that the F40 is not the fastest car in the game. It shouldn't be. For the longest time I would avoid it like a plague simply because I had neither the patience nor the knowledge to actually learn the intricacies of a driving it. It's a hard car to master especially if what you're after is speed around the bend. What you need to know is how to harness just enough power to let you comfortaby take the corners so that you could accelerate out of it and into the next one. And it's in between the turns is when you let all hell breaks loose.


Edited by Scaff - Added paragraphs - Please don't post walls of text

 

[TrievelA7X]

I can't imagine the F40 with R3s still handles as you said it. I usually drive all the cars in GT5P in stock form (TT mode). Of course that negates the ability to turn off the ABS which we all know the F40 comes without. But I try to imitate the handling by using the recommended N2-N3 and if I'm desperate S1. I never venture anything past S1 for any of the cars in GT5P (yes the Tuned Ford GT included) unless it's for the purpose of getting onto the leaderboard. Of course I do use a FFB wheel (G25) turning off all aids (except the aforementioned ABS) and manual shifting.
The F40 in my recent test around Suzuka using N3s clocked a decent 2:31s. I'm always 4-5 seconds slower than the top time at Suzuka regardless of the cars (when using S2 tires since it's the tires commonly used on the TT leaderboard) so that would translate into 2:26 which in in line with the actual fastest F40 time recorded at the track. On the same occasion using the same tires a Corvette Z06, a Ford GT, a Viper SRT10 and an Audi R8, I recorded 2:30, 2:29, 2:33 and 2:31 respectively while the Nissan GTR was a top of the heap at 2:27 (again that 5 seconds from the actual GTR time at the track which is 2:22). How would I rate the F40 handling- yes it does understeer but mostly when turning in and as you acclerate out of the turn, you get a lift-off oversteer (exactly as Martin Brundle said in his video of the F40). You do have to slow down quite considerably on a very tight corners and not so much on a track like Suzuka although you do need to pay more attention when cornering than you would with the other cars. But where it excels is in the acceleration out of the turn and on medium to long straightaways which you do get a few at Suzuka. You can even do a quick short sprint in between (at the "S" curves) to make up time since the car does accelerate very well. I must add that on a track like Suzuka you seldom use anything past the third gear although you do get to 4th on the few straightaways.
The steering is another strong point of F40 and PD captures that quite well. Neither the FM2 version nor the Ferrari Challenge version quite manage to capture the steering ability of the F40 as well as the Prologue version although I do have to add that I doesn't quite feel as controlled as the more modern Ferraris but it's precise nonetheless (as should you). As difficult it is to navigate the car (in Prologue) using the N3 tires, I feel that it's by far the best representation of how it actually feels- of course this is from reading reviews and literatures on the F40 and not from actually driving one. The S1 tires while easier and faster, does make it feel as if driving on rail and I can't imagine using any of the R type tires with the car. Although I suspect if you're using the PS3 controller be it Sixaxis or DS3, you might want to stick to the stickier compound for enjoyment sake. But if you're using a good to decent wheel and more importantly in this case a good set of pedals since how well you apply the throttle (and the brakes) make a huge difference as to whether you'll enjoy driving the F40 around a challenging track like Suzuka. I'm pretty sure the more practise I put in, I'll be able to at least gain another second although I doubt I'll crack into the high 2:20s.
To conclude it would say that I would agree if someone were to say that the F40 is not the fastest car in the game. It shouldn't be. For the longest time I would avoid it like a plague simply because I had neither the patience nor the knowledge to actually learn the intricacies of a driving it. It's a hard car to master especially if what you're after is speed around the bend. What you need to know is how to harness just enough power to let you comfortaby take the corners so that you could accelerate out of it and into the next one. And it's in between the turns is when you let all hell breaks loose.

Good call considering I stated I was and it's in my sig.
But seriously, it sounds as though you've practiced the F40 much more. A truer indicator might be comparing the fastest F40 times on the leaderboard to those other cars. Plus the only car it beat was the Viper, which sucks in GT5P.
But yeah, I'll give some of them, (or all) a run on N3's. I'll use a different track, since the controller doesn't do justice for me on Suzuka.

EDIT: Keep in mind the F40 weighs just 2425 pounds... it should wail the pants off all of those cars, mathematically. And I suspect it might on racing tires IRL, maybe even street tires, since it wouldn't still have those older tires, if that's what anyone's thinking.

 

[AERO_HDT]

Interesting thread, but I find it amusing that a bunch of gamers would sit around talking about the nuances of how such a rare car like an F40 handles in real life by watching video and then comment on how it handles in game.

The fact of the matter is, Gran Turismo is based around a single physics engine and that physics engine, no matter how complex, will never be able to replicate the many cars we expect to be able to drive to perfection. To ask this of PD is like having your head in the sand.

Secondly, I find it ludicrous that Kazunori, perhaps one of the biggest car buffs you're ever likely to meet, would even consider "skewing" representations of how a car handles/accelerates/drives just because he OWNS one. If you seriously think that this is the case, you should not be playing Gran Turismo. Or more to the point, if you think that this is the case, WHY would you WANT to play Gran Turismo?

PD are tasked with representing a mammoth amount of cars on a digital system with limited resources and I sincerely think that they do a brilliant job of it. But some of us sit around nitpicking the finer points of "understeer" in a Ferrari F40 through a corner that none of us will ever take flat out in real life.

A bit ridiculous isn't it?

 

[TrievelA7X]

Interesting thread, but I find it amusing that a bunch of gamers would sit around talking about the nuances of how such a rare car like an F40 handles in real life by watching video and then comment on how it handles in game.

The fact of the matter is, Gran Turismo is based around a single physics engine and that physics engine, no matter how complex, will never be able to replicate the many cars we expect to be able to drive to perfection. To ask this of PD is like having your head in the sand.

Secondly, I find it ludicrous that Kazunori, perhaps one of the biggest car buffs you're ever likely to meet, would even consider "skewing" representations of how a car handles/accelerates/drives just because he OWNS one. If you seriously think that this is the case, you should not be playing Gran Turismo. Or more to the point, if you think that this is the case, WHY would you WANT to play Gran Turismo?

PD are tasked with representing a mammoth amount of cars on a digital system with limited resources and I sincerely think that they do a brilliant job of it. But some of us sit around nitpicking the finer points of "understeer" in a Ferrari F40 through a corner that none of us will ever take flat out in real life.

A bit ridiculous isn't it?

I would hope they're only using 1 physics engine, cause there's only one set of physics for cars IRL.

As for the other bit, I just find it odd that certain cars have been given extra performance for multiple games. I find it odd since they can have 700 and almost all of them are perfect. And I say that having compared real-life times in 1/4's in previous GT's to real cars times. Most are perfect. Most top speeds are perfect.
But a 486hp 2425lb Ferrari can't out-accelerate a 485hp 3900lb GT-R.

 

[AERO_HDT]

Who said it could?

Okay, I'll be the first one to say it can, LOL!

Accordingly the F40 will hit 0-100kph (60mph) in a sub 4 second time (3.7-3.9 seconds), whilst the GTR does it in 3.3, which equates to around half a second difference to hit the ton.

Surprisingly enough though, both have similar quarter mile times of mid 11's .

11.6 for the GTR as tested by Edmunds, and 11.6 also published by Octane, but there is a test of the F40 which has it run the standing quarter in 11.293 seconds @ 127mph which is 7mph better than the GTR which only manages a trap speed of 120mph. This test was accepted by FastestLaps.com

Side by side, the GTR is quicker to 60mph but from here on it would seem as if the lighter weight of the Ferrari swallow the GTR whole in a straight line and what turns out to be a 0.5 second deficit, turns into a 0.5 second advantage, meaning the 60-120mph time of each car is stacked firmly in favour of the F40.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Now, as for the F40, I drove one today, I did mod it to 700pp with 90% weight, and R3's all around.
Car handles like crap. Understeers like a dump truck, but even that aside, just can't go around corners fast.
I was seeing low 50's (mph) around the first corner, and unless the graphics make that corner look less sharp than it is, I swear my Buick could take it close to that on it's bubbly stock tires. I managed a 1:42.9:tdown:

And it does spin the tires awfully easy for it's weight and power, compared to other cars. And I don't consider 1992 tire compounds to be a factor, because any F40 that would be raced now, 18 years later wouldn't be using them.

may I suggest a change of driver might solve your issue.

 

[Paulie]

I would hope they're only using 1 physics engine, cause there's only one set of physics for cars IRL.

As for the other bit, I just find it odd that certain cars have been given extra performance for multiple games. I find it odd since they can have 700 and almost all of them are perfect. And I say that having compared real-life times in 1/4's in previous GT's to real cars times. Most are perfect. Most top speeds are perfect.
But a 486hp 2425lb Ferrari can't out-accelerate a 485hp 3900lb GT-R.

Not on the handling at least, did you ever drive the C1 Corvette in GT4? It was supposed to be a poor car in its day even, yet in GT games it went like an absolute rocket. So much so in fact, that with less than 400hp and only S tyres it could outpace computer driven JGTC cars IIRC. It was certainly one of the fastest road cars in the game, even despite having around 200-400hp less than the only cars that could match it.

Edit: PS- I love the C1 Corvette IRL and game.

 

[AERO_HDT]

As for the other bit, I just find it odd that certain cars have been given extra performance for multiple games. I find it odd since they can have 700 and almost all of them are perfect. And I say that having compared real-life times in 1/4's in previous GT's to real cars times. Most are perfect. Most top speeds are perfect.

I would disagree, because almost every European and US car you can drive in real life has a speed limiter which have been removed in GT, so I struggle to understand how PD's representation of top speed for most cars are perfect when everyone knows that even an E55 is limited to 155mph.

The Jaguar E-Type in game was able to clock 240km/h, but in real life, it was never able to hit those speeds.

The Buick GNX can clock 225km/h plus, but in real life the chunky aerodynamics, lousy tyres and rubbish gearing had it against a brick wall at 200km/h.

The Ford Mustang GT in GT5P can go from 0-60mph in about 8 seconds, but in real life, it manages it in around 5.3 seconds.

Very very few cars are "perfect" in the game. The 599 Ferrari has a quoted weight figure in game of 1580 kilos, but published data has it tipping the scales at 1688kg.

Please provide us of examples of testing that you've done in game where performance has been consistently out of the box quicker than comparable real life times and perhaps there shall be a beer-worthy discussion for all of us to engage in!

 

[Paulie]

I would disagree, because almost every European and US car you can drive in real life has a speed limiter which have been removed in GT, so I struggle to understand how PD's representation of top speed for most cars are perfect when everyone knows that even an E55 is limited to 155mph.

The Jaguar E-Type in game was able to clock 240km/h, but in real life, it was never able to hit those speeds.

The Buick GNX can clock 225km/h plus, but in real life the chunky aerodynamics, lousy tyres and rubbish gearing had it against a brick wall at 200km/h.

The Ford Mustang GT in GT5P can go from 0-60mph in about 8 seconds, but in real life, it manages it in around 5.3 seconds.

Very very few cars are "perfect" in the game. The 599 Ferrari has a quoted weight figure in game of 1580 kilos, but published data has it tipping the scales at 1688kg.

Please provide us of examples of testing that you've done in game where performance has been consistently out of the box quicker than comparable real life times and perhaps there shall be a beer-worthy discussion for all of us to engage in!

The GNX's top speed is probably mostly gearing, even a completely standard VN V6 Commodore at normal height and restrictive power could hit 200km/hr. The book I have states 240km/hr top speed for the E-Type. The Mustang's rear end traction in the game is woefully off I suspect, it has almost no forward drive at all.

 

[niky]

Not on the handling at least, did you ever drive the C1 Corvette in GT4? It was supposed to be a poor car in its day even, yet in GT games it went like an absolute rocket. So much so in fact, that with less than 400hp and only S tyres it could outpace computer driven JGTC cars IIRC. It was certainly one of the fastest road cars in the game, even despite having around 200-400hp less than the only cars that could match it.

Edit: PS- I love the C1 Corvette IRL and game.

Feels like I've been trying to point that out for pages... the Corvettes were unusually great in GT3 and GT4... and it's only in GT5P that they started to model the squirrely and unmanageable side of the Corvette.

The Elise/Exige (non-concept) was terrific in GT4. In GT5P, not many people use it because it's tricky to master.

And the Skylines in GT4 were nowhere near as good as they were in GT3 and in GT5P.

-

Drag racing i s all about traction, precise throttle control and clutch control. Without a vibrating pad attached to your b uttocks, you can't feel the first, without a steering wheel and pedal set with force-feedback pedals (which the G25 doesn't have), you can't have the second, and... well... we obviously don't have the third.

 

[rsh]

I
But a 486hp 2425lb Ferrari can't out-accelerate a 485hp 3900lb GT-R.

I just read a nice article about the GT-R where it is faster then a Porsche. the testdriver stated that the GT-R is a difficult car on the edges and the last 5% is the hardest part to squeeze out of.

And don't forget that the F40 does 4.07 seconds on the 01-100 km/h spint, whilst the GT-r does it in 3.7 seconds.
Just 20 years of improvement in the automotive industry ;-)

 

[Paulie]

Feels like I've been trying to point that out for pages... the Corvettes were unusually great in GT3 and GT4... and it's only in GT5P that they started to model the squirrely and unmanageable side of the Corvette.

The Elise/Exige (non-concept) was terrific in GT4. In GT5P, not many people use it because it's tricky to master.

And the Skylines in GT4 were nowhere near as good as they were in GT3 and in GT5P.

-

Drag racing i s all about traction, precise throttle control and clutch control. Without a vibrating pad attached to your b uttocks, you can't feel the first, without a steering wheel and pedal set with force-feedback pedals (which the G25 doesn't have), you can't have the second, and... well... we obviously don't have the third.

Not all the Corvettes, just C1. C2-C5 were all about right for pace, and given GT4's physics, the only car that was REALLY squirelly in the entire game was the Shelby Cobra.

 

[AERO_HDT]

Indeed, you're correct, the E-Type in GT4 will only hit 236km/h, Jaguar published a figure of 150mph (250km/h) for the E-Type when it was released, but it was found that the car could barely crack 140mph which works out about right. But horsepower for the Jaguar was overquoted as well at 265bhp when in reality, the car only made 220-230.

Apparently Jaguar cheated by releasing a press car with a blueprinted engine and choice modifications as a way of garnering better publicity. (Hello Nissan).

The GNX is a rare car, less than 500 of them were ever built, I don't recall seeing any tests on factory cars that were able to take it beyond 200km/h, but accordingly, the car was speed limited as the VR rated tyres could only manage 200kmh. If this is the case and nobody has taken a GNX in factory spec beyond 200km/h, where did PD get their data from? Guesswork?

Claimed horsepower by GM was only 280bhp, but contemporary dyno tests and publications put the figure much closer to 350bhp (R&T) - if memory serves me correct, the GNX could run the standing quarter in factory trim at 13.3 at a bit over 100mph. Now you try the same thing in GT4 with Darth Vader, fit road tyres to it and see if you can break 14.5 seconds.

It cannot be done.

 

[TrievelA7X]

I would disagree, because almost every European and US car you can drive in real life has a speed limiter which have been removed in GT, so I struggle to understand how PD's representation of top speed for most cars are perfect when everyone knows that even an E55 is limited to 155mph.

The Jaguar E-Type in game was able to clock 240km/h, but in real life, it was never able to hit those speeds.

The Buick GNX can clock 225km/h plus, but in real life the chunky aerodynamics, lousy tyres and rubbish gearing had it against a brick wall at 200km/h.

The Ford Mustang GT in GT5P can go from 0-60mph in about 8 seconds, but in real life, it manages it in around 5.3 seconds.

Very very few cars are "perfect" in the game. The 599 Ferrari has a quoted weight figure in game of 1580 kilos, but published data has it tipping the scales at 1688kg.

Please provide us of examples of testing that you've done in game where performance has been consistently out of the box quicker than comparable real life times and perhaps there shall be a beer-worthy discussion for all of us to engage in!

Most of the cars in GT4. Camaro's ran 13.5's at 106, Z06 ran 12.9 at 113, Viper's ran high 11's at 119, 350Z's ran 13.8's at 102ish, the list is quite long. As for top speeds, like you said, most have speed governors IRL, so that was mostly just common sense for their power/weight/potential aero, the latter being determind by their stock power/weight/gearing, & top speed limiters. An example there would be the NSX, and Camaro. While the NSX is limited to 172, it manage about 180 in GT4, which seems reasonable due to it's gear ratios being top speed friendly, and it's power and downforce. The Camaro reached about 176-8, being what I've heard they can hit stock, and with little df, the aerodynamics would put it in line with the NSX.
I'm not talking about 1 or 2mph differences when I consider a car performing unreasonabley well or poor, I'm talking about cars going way faster or slower.
Like the C5-R being able to clip about 200ish, when IRL their claimed top speed is 165. I'm sure they under-exaggerate IRL, but not that much.
So yes, these are my opinions, based on calculations, you can disagree all you like, but simply saying, "we can't possibly have any clue" is complete hogwash to me.

Not all the Corvettes, just C1. C2-C5 were all about right for pace, and given GT4's physics, the only car that was REALLY squirelly in the entire game was the Shelby Cobra.

Technically the ZR-1 and Z06 were a little slower with a little less traction off the line, than IRL.

Indeed, you're correct, the E-Type in GT4 will only hit 236km/h, Jaguar published a figure of 150mph (250km/h) for the E-Type when it was released, but it was found that the car could barely crack 140mph which works out about right. But horsepower for the Jaguar was overquoted as well at 265bhp when in reality, the car only made 220-230.

Apparently Jaguar cheated by releasing a press car with a blueprinted engine and choice modifications as a way of garnering better publicity. (Hello Nissan).

The GNX is a rare car, less than 500 of them were ever built, I don't recall seeing any tests on factory cars that were able to take it beyond 200km/h, but accordingly, the car was speed limited as the VR rated tyres could only manage 200kmh. If this is the case and nobody has taken a GNX in factory spec beyond 200km/h, where did PD get their data from? Guesswork?

Claimed horsepower by GM was only 280bhp, but contemporary dyno tests and publications put the figure much closer to 350bhp (R&T) - if memory serves me correct, the GNX could run the standing quarter in factory trim at 13.3 at a bit over 100mph. Now you try the same thing in GT4 with Darth Vader, fit road tyres to it and see if you can break 14.5 seconds.

It cannot be done.

The GNX was very slow compared to real life.It was programmed a pig. But I have to ask, if you speak in kph, do they even have them where you are?

speaking of my calculations, there are devices that can figure these things out for you. Like g-tech's, you tell it weight, and if you can find the exact cd x frontal area, (forget what they call it) it'll give you HP at the wheels numbers, based on acceleration.
It's not an exact science, obviously, but given enough information you can actually make a pretty educated guess.
Just like common sense will tell you if Ford's GT could go faster than the SLR, Murcielago, Carrera GT, etc, etc, they would have made it do so. If it could go faster than cars with up to 70hp more, (and 100,000's of $$$) wouldn't they want the bragging rights? Of course they would, don't kid yourself.

may I suggest a change of driver might solve your issue.

So A change of driver will make it accelerate faster?

Side by side, the GTR is quicker to 60mph but from here on it would seem as if the lighter weight of the Ferrari swallow the GTR whole in a straight line and what turns out to be a 0.5 second deficit, turns into a 0.5 second advantage, meaning the 60-120mph time of each car is stacked firmly in favour of the F40.

That's Real Life times. I know that, physics dictate it, doesn't really matter what the 1500lb heavier car has.
But does it outrun it in GT5P? I don't think it does, I'll grant you I can't compare them like I could in GT4, but the GT-R seems just as fast to me, at any speeds just about.

 

[niky]

Seems is different from is. The big handicap of any rear-driver in GT5P is the difficulty of throttle modulation. Which is especially important if you're talking rear-wheel drive cars with traction issues. I ghost-race... a lot. And I can tell you this... while a GT-R might seem awesomely fast due to its incredible corner exit speeds (thanks to AWD), you can bite chunks out of its lead on the straights as it approaches its aero-limits... though, given that the F40 is, again, around twenty years old, with traction issues, fewer gears and a slower-shifting box, and the difference from 0-100 mph between the two is a mere 0.9 seconds, there's no way it can make up the difference to the GT-R from such a slight advantage in outright speed.

Again: Ford GT... speed limited. Why? Why does BMW limit its near-200 mph supercar, the M6 to 155? Why does Mercedes AMG do the same things? It's politics. It's safety. It's engineering. If Ford didn't feel like spending the millions of dollars to develop a 250 mph tire (which, by the way, will cost you around $10,000 a piece for the Veyron... ), then they probably made the right decision capping top speed at 205 mph.

Like the C5-R being able to clip about 200ish, when IRL their claimed top speed is 165. I'm sure they under-exaggerate IRL, but not that much.

With adjustable aerodynamics in GT4, you can specify much less downforce than in real-life. The Dodge Viper ACR should, by all rights, be a near-200 hp monster, but it's aero-limited and gear-limited to 176 mph.

-

Not all cars had accurate quarter mile times in GT4... due to traction issues, it was often difficult to match real-life 0-62 times for front-wheel drive cars in GT4.

 

[888 Tuning]

.....
But does it outrun it in GT5P? I don't think it does, I'll grant you I can't compare them like I could in GT4, but the GT-R seems just as fast to me, at any speeds just about.

Very easy to test in Arcade mode.

-Take GTR to track of choice with long straight.
-Line it up where your ready to race from, 3 big revs and fire it off to the end of the straight.
-Save Ghost Replay
-Get F40 from garage and go back to the track and load the Ghost Replay
-Line the F40 up beside where the GTR was... wait for the 3 big revs from the GTR as your timer and then punch it. If you havnt done so already, you can configure your left and right buttons as view left and right to check the other car.

** Edit.. actually not sure the Ghost has sound?? but you can easily use some other method, like 3 dabs of the brake light.

Be interested to see the results if you can launch the F40 cleanly

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

So A change of driver will make it accelerate faster?

You said your issue was the handling so a change of driver would make a difference.

 

[Scaff]

Again: Ford GT... speed limited. Why? Why does BMW limit its near-200 mph supercar, the M6 to 155? Why does Mercedes AMG do the same things? It's politics. It's safety. It's engineering. If Ford didn't feel like spending the millions of dollars to develop a 250 mph tire (which, by the way, will cost you around $10,000 a piece for the Veyron... ), then they probably made the right decision capping top speed at 205 mph.QUOTE]

If I recall correctly (and I normally do) the Ford GT is limited to 205 due to stability issues above that speed.

They were forced (by the marketing department) to keep the overall shape of the car the same as the GT-40, a car which has no downforce at all (quite the opposite it shows huge lift at speed).

As such they were limited to underbody aero, which in turn limited exactly what could be done in terms of stability past 200mph.

Yes the car can do more than 205mph, but beyond that you run the risk of it taking off.



Regards

Scaff

 

[niky]

Thanks for clearing that up... it's very hard to find anecdotal evidence of why Ford did this, though there are some accounts relating that they did.

Very easy to test in Arcade mode.

-Take GTR to track of choice with long straight.
-Line it up where your ready to race from, 3 big revs and fire it off to the end of the straight.
-Save Ghost Replay
-Get F40 from garage and go back to the track and load the Ghost Replay
-Line the F40 up beside where the GTR was... wait for the 3 big revs from the GTR as your timer and then punch it. If you havnt done so already, you can configure your left and right buttons as view left and right to check the other car.

** Edit.. actually not sure the Ghost has sound?? but you can easily use some other method, like 3 dabs of the brake light.

Be interested to see the results if you can launch the F40 cleanly

Use the brakes. Sit on the straight, just a few car-lengths from the start-finish line. Blip the brakes one-two-three times then go (of course, you'll torque-brake the GT-R against the handbrake so you can launch properly).

Sounds like a fun test.