Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'GT6 Tuning' started by DolHaus, Jan 16, 2014.
I think you have a good point about quelling the creativity of newbie tuning by copying someone elses tune. That said, I learned an awfull lot from Praiano just by osmosis. After copying some tunes you get a sense of how they should look. I built my own race car out of a Mustang in real life and tuned it myself to some degree, but there are a lot of settings for a newbie to start with in GT-6, settings that you might not get to in 6 months building your own car in real life. I also had a lot of help with my Mustang in real life, guys that knew a lot more than I did. Like Steve Saleen for instance. So, studying under the master is probably not a bad thing, even if you only did it a few times, to witness the total transformation of an unmanageble car, into a dream car, which is what Praiano does.
When GT6 first hit the shelves, I bought it and started racing right away. I had already been racing and tuning in GT-5, so I had some background on top of Real Life. I had no trouble at all tuning in GT6 without Praiano as he still didn't have a copy of the game and thus no tunes. I completed about 70% of the game without Praiano but felt just fine using some of his tunes when he started publishing after buying the game. His Ferrari FXX tune is magic for instance. Although I had already won races with my FXX, his tune made it effortless to go even further with the car, so, it's all a learning process.
Newbies should know by now, that there are things in GT6 which are not correct. The most important one of course is that the camber feature of the tuning sheet is broken or not correctly installed. Version 1.04 did not correct this fault so far as I can discover. The best camber value is no camber or ZERO.
The other thing that sticks out for me is the totally unrealistic horsepower to top speed ratio. In real life it takes approximately 1000 hp to achieve between 200 and 220 mph. To get your car up to 300 mph would require about 2,250 HP, but guys in GT6 are getting this kind of speed from like 1200 HP. Sorry, but the drag of a car varies as to the SQUARE of the speed. So if you square 300 you get 90,000 units of drag, disregarding tire deformation and blowouts LOL, whereas 100mph creates only 10,000 units of drag, 200 mph creates 40,000 units of drag, so you can see the exponential increase of drag with increasing your speed over 100mph. Probably nobady really cares about the speed glitch, but the camber is important as is the ommission of CASTER, which really should be in the game. Any real race car has caster/camber adjustment plates and so should we. I had them on my Mustang and they worked well.
1000bhp to go past 200 mph? You may want to check your facts there. It takes about 400bhp to reach 200mph in an average weight/semi-aerodynamic car, Its only once you get up past 230mph that you need monster power and good aerodynamics.
What does caster relate to? I hear the term used but I don't know how it applies.
Real life seems to disagree.
McLaren F1: 627 horsepower, 243 mph.
Ferrari F40: 478 horsepower, 201 mph.
Ford GT500: 662 horsepower, 202 mph.
While you're absolutely right that drag increases with the square of speed, it is important to remember that actual drag is not simply the Cd, but rather the Cd multiplied by the vehicle's frontal area. That's why trucks have very good Cd values but are still areodynamic bricks; their frontal area is just too large.
To go twice as fast does require 8 times the power (2x rotational speed for the wheels multiplied by the 4x increase in drag), but it's not anywhere near as simple as a blanket statement like "1,000 hp is needed for 200 mph."
As the Ferrari F40 and the Ford GT500 show, the car's aerodynamic properties play a huge role in top speed; the F40 and GT500 have, for all intents and purposes, the same top speed, but the GT500 has just over 38% more power. When you're dealing with something like a race car, which has the frontal area of a dragonfly you can get a lot more speed for a given power output if you don't have the aerodynamic devices set for high downforce (i.e. high drag).
Castor refers to the angle of the suspension strut (damper and spring) in a fore/aft movement. (It actually refers to king pin angle, but it's easier to imagine if you think about moving the strut tops)
The further back the top of the strut Is from the centre of hub, the more castor effect is felt.
It makes the wheel want to run straight and true in correlation with the direction of movement. It is what causes the front wheels to self counter steer when drifters let go of the wheel.
Castors on your typical shopping trolley work by the same principle.
Castor also gives dynamic camber.
More castor will see the outside wheel gain more negative camber when the steering wheel is turned, whilst the inside wheel will gain positive camber. (have you ever seen a merc at full lock? They run huge castor for high speed stability)
I'm barely scratching the surface in truth, but these are the fundamentals as far as I'm concerned.
Happy to be corrected as I am by no means an expert.
Ahh ok, I looked up some pictures and your explanation makes sense (I only really understand things with pictures lol). I can see how that would affect things and where you could make improvements based on this. I can also see why PD left it out, changing caster would affect the entire suspension geometry and how it was modeled. The gt engine is already pushing the envelope in terms of what the hardware can do and adding something that would make such drastic changes to the function of parts might be asking too much. Hopefully when it makes the jump to next gen we'll get that option.
IMO, GT7 should have everything.
Given what is known about the limitations of the ps3, I'm gobsmacked that gt6 has what it has.
If PD can do this with a seriously outdated machine, I can't wait to see what happens with the ps4.
I don't want the graphics to change much. I want tyre deformation and pressures. Castor, much more adjustment in spring and damper rates, choice of gas or oil dampers etc adjustable full lock angle. You name it.
I also love my idea of research and development modifications.
In essence you would be able to max out a car, then pay for the R&D and it would up the power, but not by a fixed amount. The option would also get more expensive each time. But in theory we could be running 2000bhp evo's etc. I would use it for special cars like the Escort Cosworth rally car and RS200.
I think that GT7 will be a game changer in the way that 5 was. As long as they don't rush it, I think they will raise the bar dramatically.
What I'd really like is some new sounds! Theres only a handful of cars that sound nice or different, the rest sound the same as they did in gt3.
I'm not sure that raising the power is an enhancement I'd be interested in really, I'm not into big power machines as they don't make good circuit racers, only really good for drag racing and top speed cars. Don't get me wrong, a 2000bhp cossie would be an impressive beast, but it would be pretty useless for racing as you could only get the power down using massive drag racing tires
I agree entirely. But Its still a game afterall.
I actually enjoy taming 1000bhp + cars around a track. They just need extreme throttle control. Many time attack cars have power levels well beyond what is possible in the game. That was my main point. I know it would get abused, but we have online room restrictions to ensure fair racing.
If little jimmy wants to waste 20mill on a 5000bhp supra, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to.
Sorry to go off topic mate.
Nah no worries, its interesting to see another point of view. Yeah I suppose if that is your thing then you are slightly pegged by car choice, I've never really noticed it because I avoid big power cars like the plague. Personally I like a car that you have to drive hard to get the best out of, not one you are constantly fighting to stay on the black stuff. Different cars for different people. I'd guess the problem is keeping it 'real' without the option of engine swapping (I'd imagine forza has that tied up in all kinds of red tape), engines always have their limits and there would always be a ceiling for power.
Yes, I forgot to say drivetrain swaps.
Again, I agree entirely.
I love low powered cars on comforts just as much, or even 250bhp race cars on slicks.
I enjoy all types of cars. That's why I think we need more scope for the super nutter mobiles.
It would be cool but I don't think its going to happen. Saying that, sooner or later someone will write a mod file to set the power to what ever you like.
My dislike of high powered cars is mostly down to my inability to drive them. I admire the abilities of cars like the redbull but my brain just doesn't work that fast, by the time I've realized I'm approaching a corner I'm usually in the kitty litter wondering what the hell happened lol
Haha, the x cars are a different matter altogether. I can handle them, but I don't enjoy them as much as the normal cars. I'm by no means fast with them, compared to what they're capable of.
Couldn't imagine trying to tune one to make it better!
I've never done any hybriding / modding so never experienced the madness first hand, but I've seen the videos.
I wouldn't want million horsepower cars though. Not what I want from a realistic in game R&D service.
I disagree there about 400 Hp for 200 mph as we took a Mustang with 330 HP and it would only pull 162 with 3.73 gears. My buddy took the same car with over 900 HP intercooled, blower, and we just made 201 mph so I know this is real life I was in both cars for the GPS measuring. So, I used these numbers as a generally correct power figure across the spectrum. I know a little bit about the Cd thing too being a jet pilot, and glider pilot with 17,000 hours.
While I agree with you that 400 hp is on the low side for 200 mph, it is not beyond the realm of possibility with an appropriately low-drag car.
If your buddy needed over 900 hp to get up to 201, then how do you explain the GT500 (also a Mustang) hitting 202 with "only" 662 horsepower?
My 951 will hit a touch over 160 (bouncing off the rev limiter in 5th gear) with 275 horsepower (dyno measured at the rear wheels) and it's not a particularly low-drag vehicle. I don't see it needing another 700+ horsepower to get to 200.
With decent aerodynamics, it seems that about 500 horsepower is pretty consistently good for 200 mph (see the Ferrari F40 and McLarent F1 examples above). The GT500 Mustang needs more because it's a bit of an aerodynamic brick.
I've seen a 406 Bhp Misubishi Evo 8 do 202 Mph on the autobahn with only minimal aero mods (wing mirrors removed and all the panel gaps and non essential holes taped up), it was running a sequential rally gearbox of some description and was lightly stripped (back seats removed, front seats replaced with buckets).
I'm not doubting your science or experience, your physics seem legit with what I remember from my apprenticeship.
Are you talking in drag racing terms perhaps? I'd agree with the general area of power estimation if we were talking 1/4 mile performance
No, I'm talking Silver State Classic series where there are 12 mile straightaways! More like Route X. Everybody wants to break into the 200mph club but its harder than most people think. My numbers were aimed at an average car in GT5/6 road and track. I do know that if you remove all the downforce/lift/drag from our race cars they will go faster.
Wow, really? Maybe the mustang is just really bad with aerodynamics? It does have a really flat nose so that can't help and I imagine its quite heavy as most American car are.
Don't discount the effect of taping up panel gaps and non-essential holes. That can make a huge difference in drag.
Weight actually plays almost no roll in top speed (as long as you're on level ground). Top speed is all about drag and power. Weight will affect how quickly a vehicle reaches top speed, but it doesn't really have an effect on what that top speed is.
I understand the effectiveness, but the Evo has never been an aerodynamic car due to its snub nose and wide/tall body shape. I was simply using it to illustrate a point.
I believe a heavier car is better at high speeds because it has the mass to sustain the momentum better when not on the accelerator. I'm simply trying to find reasons why mateys Mustang needs so much power to break 200
Fair point about the Evo.
I'm curious about the Mustang requiring 900 hp as well since the factory stock GT500 can hit 202 mph with 662 hp and the GT500 might as well be a blimp hangar compared to many other sportscars.
Maybe its just a gearing issue, older mustangs used 4 speed boxes rather than the modern 6 speed, perhaps it just doesn't have the legs. I couldn't really say as gearing is not my specialty
It would have hand to be a Mustang from the first half of 1983 or before to have a 4-speed manual. In mid-'83 Ford started using the 5-speed Tremec T5 and ever since then has had at least 5 gears for the manual transmission Mustangs.
The automatics were 4-speeds for a long time, but the AOD or AOD-E automatic used in the Mustang from '84 through 2004 would have destroyed itself if coupled to a 900 hp engine. In fact, the only automatic I can think of from Ford that would handle a 900 hp engine is the old 3-speed C6 (or one of the more modern automatics from a Ford truck like the Super Duty-only 5R110W or 6R140 transmissions).
On a modded Mustang with a 900 hp engine, it would be most likely that he was running either a Tremec T56 or Tremec TR-6060 (an updated, beefed-up T56), both of which are six-speed boxes. The 5-speed T45 and TR-3650 boxes are also possible, but less likely since they would not hold up well to a 900 hp engine.
Great info! As I've said before, I know very little about gearboxes and gearing, I understand the basics in GT but that's where my knowledge ends.
Still doesn't get us closer to an answer though lol
What do you mean you don't want a 43,000 BHP S2000?! That sounds like a great idea, right guys? er.... guys? lol
Thank you so much for this thread, DolHaus ! Really appreciate the time you put in for everyone ! I hope your week is an excellent one !
First time writing a post on gtplanet so if this comes out completely wrong my apologies.... But thank you seriously. Finally a forsure guide to tuning suspensions on gt6. Ive looked in other places and found certain things, but 2 or 3 posts down from the instructions someone says, "no that's wrong" or "That's not how you set it up" and comes with a different outlook. It soon becomes easier to say skip this, "I don't even care anymore". I tuned a little bit on gt5 getting better and better as i went, but when gt6 came out i felt like i couldn't tune worth a damn lol. I told myself when I got gt6 that i would only use racing tires for race cars(Liveries, numbered vehicles, tc's etc) therefore increasing the level of difficulty while adding a feel of a accomplishment after winning a race without the safety of tires that do most of the work for you. I just wanted to say I appreciate you taking the time to help tuners like me out on gt6. If you could take the time out of your day to write all this in hopes of helping someone, I have no problem taking the time to say thank you. This was very detailed and to the point. Great job
Thank you. Theres a lot of valuable information out there but a lot of it goes far too deep for the majority of tuners. Some of it still goes straight over my head and I know a fair bit about the principles and theories behind suspension tuning. I intended this guide to be accessible for the majority of tuners rather than just the experts. Most people just need a nudge in the right direction and they will soon learn what is possible through tuning.
I may write a piece on how the suspension components work during the various stages of cornering and the forces involved. It all depends on whether I can find a way to simplify what is quite a complicated subject involving all sorts of maths and science. Hopefully I can figure it out, I think it could be a useful next step in helping people understand what they're trying to do
Great help DolHaus
Thank you so much for this, this is exactly what i was looking for and it's a fantastic staring point for who (like me) doesn't have the slightest clue about tuning.
I'll study this guide for sure so finally i will have some starting reference point.
You're awesome! Thanks!