Gran Turismo Physics(Poll)

[Johnnypenso]

At the end of the day, it's all just maths - equations and variables.

If the answer is 4, what is the best simulation?

1) x * y, where x = 2, and y = 2, result = 4

or

2) (6a*(b^2 +c)/(d+a+(e^3)) + 1.3*b) - f , where a = 8, b = 4.5, c = 23, d = 124, e = 6, f = 7.7 .... result 4.116

The first one arrives at the correct answer, but only takes into account two variables. The second doesn't quite get it right, but takes into account many more variables.

If 4 was actually the cars 0-60 time, which one would you think was broken? Which one do you think would react better to tuning, or different tyres, or track temperature.

You don't get to see what equations these games are using, you can only judge the output. Personally I think PD goes down the route of the 2nd equation. They try and build all the results from complex equations, but end up missing the mark, and putting a lot of strain on the PS3 at the same time. I think that's the reason why PD get respect from people (such as manufacturers, and perhaps the FIA), for what they do, even though sometimes the out-put isn't right.

I don't need to be a software engineer to know there are several major physics flaws in GT and that the tire model is very basic. I'm sure there are lots of calculations involved and it's much more complex than an arcade game obviously, it's just not close to being sim at this point. GT7 will probably nudge it a little more in that direction but I don't expect a lot of change on that front. Gotta keep the majority of players happy.

 

[Stylel_Code]

Imho, physics is also hugely limited by the inferior Cell and its different architecture. PD said physics will be improved on next gen, maybe that means that it was current gen that didn't allow them to be more realistic than that? But again, any sims will never be 100% accurate true to life, same goes for iracing and the rest. There will always be other things missing that people will ask over and over. PD updating their own game after its official release, already shows me their attention to this aspect, as well as what we have at the moment is already more than enough for the PS3 system.

 

[Stylel_Code]

You're agreeing with something that no one has suggested or asked for. I think everyone would agree that creating 1200+ tire models is ludicrous...but of course no one other than hiccups has mentioned this.

However, if they wanted to move more into the sim category they could have created 2 or 3 different tire models to represent different eras of driving/racing. The "all or nothing" pre-requisite has been suggested only by hiccups.

I agree that GT's tire model is adequate for what it is. It's just not anywhere near the level of what is commonly accepted as simulation.

That's your opinion, because I myself consider GT6 as a simulation. It doesn't have to be at the same level as the best simulations, it just needs to be a simulation that simulates better and better with each new GT's.
Also Hickupz, it's not about the votes. He has the right to express his opinion. Maybe he hates GT or I don't know, but that doesn't mean he hasn't the right to post
We just have to avoid going on circles then it is ok.

 

[super_gt]

Let's put it this way:
We need these things in GT7

 

[NCRthree]

Good grief! The old definition of a "simulator" argument. Do rfactor, iracing or Project CARS come standard with a g-force simulating rig, a helmet with a sweaty head sock, a smell-o-romator dispensing eye watering portions of race fuel and burning rubber? How about a device that inflicts real pain when you wreck? If no then they are merely lame imitations of proper simulators.

C'mon man.

 

[ALB123]

I think we can all agree that when GT7 drops, it better have some drastically improved assets. Tire model is probably the most sought after improvement, no? Aerodynamics second? The PS4 will provide them with drastically needed resources (both memory and processing power), so there really is no reason to not address these issues. If they don't, I will be severely disappointed. Seeing that this is my fist go around with the Gran Turismo franchise, I've been very satisfied as I have nothing to compare it to. Also, I understand the limitations of the PS3 and frankly, I'm impressed they've pulled off what they have with such an antiquated computer system. However, the PS4 provides a vastly improved architecture to develop advanced physics, aerodynamics, etc... I expect big changes or I probably won't even purchase the PS4.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think we can all agree that when GT7 drops, it better have some drastically improved assets. Tire model is probably the most sought after improvement, no? Aerodynamics second? The PS4 will provide them with drastically needed resources (both memory and processing power), so there really is no reason to not address these issues. If they don't, I will be severely disappointed. Seeing that this is my fist go around with the Gran Turismo franchise, I've been very satisfied as I have nothing to compare it to. Also, I understand the limitations of the PS3 and frankly, I'm impressed they've pulled off what they have with such an antiquated computer system. However, the PS4 provides a vastly improved architecture to develop advanced physics, aerodynamics, etc... I expect big changes or I probably won't even purchase the PS4.

I can think of 10 million reasons why one would not want a tire model that is too complex. The more complex it is, the more people will get frustrated and give up if they can't figure it out. Sims don't sell well, that's part of the reason that up until now the more complex sims were PC only. PCars attempts to cross that bridge and we'll see how that goes, but it would be a huge risk on PD's part to begin to cater the game to a more narrow audience when they've been so successful by not doing so.

 

[Scaff]

The bickering and personal digs that have been flying around stop now.

Those of you who are unable to post without bring personal characteristics and traits into the conversation will be taking a holiday from GT Planet.

I would also suggest that those making claims about data, sources and information they have to back up claims/options post them rather than attempting to use them as a tool to provoke negative reactions from other members.

• You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.
• You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

This is not a topic for debate or discussion, please do not mistake it for one, it is an instruction to get back in line with the AUP and get this thread back to a discussion rather than a willy waving contest.

 

[occasionalracer]

I can think of 10 million reasons why one would not want a tire model that is too complex. The more complex it is, the more people will get frustrated and give up if they can't figure it out. Sims don't sell well, that's part of the reason that up until now the more complex sims were PC only. PCars attempts to cross that bridge and we'll see how that goes, but it would be a huge risk on PD's part to begin to cater the game to a more narrow audience when they've been so successful by not doing so.

I'm not sure the assumption that an even more difficult/accurate physics engine is going to turn people off GT.

If we're honest, GT is already currently tough for the average person out there and takes a lot of practice for someone unfamiliar with the balance and behaviour of cars to do well on a competitive level.. especially for younger people or people who have just picked it up that are used to other "racing" games.

Traditionally ya, PC has had that handful of simulation games over the last decade which put a ton of good effort into the physics, but it's only really been maybe 5-7 years since we've actually had good "consumer level" steering wheels to choose from (I'd say starting with the G25 and in 2011 the T500RS)... that has truely been able to help sim-racing and given gamers the chance to actually feel and control cars with accuracy, that's only a good thing. And there's no doubt the "semi"-sim Gran Turismo 5 pushed a massive quantity of these wheels off the shelf and have given gamers the chance and taste of the fun of controlling cars. I hope the whole Logitech wheel compatibily on PS4 doesn't put a massive dent in GT7's future (well I know it will a certain impact).. but unless those people have an up-to-date PC there's really no choice than to build a new one or buy a PS4 with a Thrustmaster.. by the current looks of things.. so it's a hurdle the general racing public will have to get over one day or another it seems.

Now I would claim that more accurate and real physics don't always mean harder, thus turning people off, I think that's a misconception, I think sometimes harder can equal less frustration as long as there is more accuracy in the FFB and you feel "why or how" the car is doing what it's doing.. (unfortuneately I don't have any experience with those acclaimed top-notch PC sims, but I know enough GT fails slightly at the limit of traction).

And there will always be the great SRF and other assists for newbies and the general dumbing down for controller users to still make the game perfectly playable for all.. it's just those people are missing out and won't ever achieve reaching the top of leaderboards or be able to take part in proper "expert" racing..

With everything PD has been doing with GT Academy and just in general with the Auto Industry I find it very difficult to believe they will stop here. PS3 is a limiter as the core game is built on the exsisting strategy of having the great variety of cars and tracks for millions of casual car enthusiasts to enjoy, BUT I think PD have an obligation to fulfill, which is keep pushing towards accuracy and individuality of each of the cars physics. Clearly the PS4 is able to crunch more variables at an even higher frequency and give us a nearly perfect simulation, it's just a waiting game to see PD is able to produce for GT7.

 

[super_gt]

Now after the release of Project CARS I want to know what do you think about GT6 physics and would you change your vote.

 

[Stylel_Code]

Now after the release of Project CARS I want to know what do you think about GT6 physics and would you change your vote.

I don't see why I would..

 

[super_gt]

I don't see why I would..

OK 👍

 

[sk8er913]

Now after the release of Project CARS I want to know what do you think about GT6 physics and would you change your vote.

G27 is not supported for PS4. My PC isn't fast enough to run it. Not even going to buy Project Cars.

 

[littleregret265]

My thoughts:
GT has always striven to be a driving simulator. And in a number of ways it achieves that goal, by accurately representing the cars represented within the game, and giving us a decent racing experience. However, it is by no means the sim to beat out there (on PS3, I'd argue it is, but once you start talking PCs, things change quickly), and has many more things it can improve on in its design. Maybe some are limited by architecture. Maybe some are just things they didn't think to include/improve
Furthermore, it has this feeling of accessibility largely because of the UI and the gameplay structure. Where many sims seek to stray from a traditional progression model in order to showcase the capabilities on track, GT still tries to give you that career based progression of "With one car and some pocket change, how far can you go?" It's a game. The tuning is somewhat simple on the surface (not exactly to a newcomer, but it's all easy enough for anyone experienced in the art of sim racing, and it isn't all encompassing either), and even though it doesn't feel as lively as some of their former offerings, everything from PD up to this point, has been a game, regardless of whether its a sim or not.

On PCars:
I want to see how the first sim of the next gen is. I know that @super_gt asked if we would still say the same about the physics model after PCars dropped, and I think that regardless what PCars does, it won't change what GT6 is. Now whether GT6 still satiates the need for others comes into question, and I do see myself getting PCars if/when I get a PS4. But even then, I still imagine I'll be playing GT6 from time to time, regardless of whether I like PCars as much as I do GT now. Admittedly, I'm not psyched about having to get a new wheel if I make that jump to PS4, just because I'm a cheap sometimes.

 

[Pseudopod]

Imho, physics is also hugely limited by the inferior Cell and its different architecture. PD said physics will be improved on next gen, maybe that means that it was current gen that didn't allow them to be more realistic than that? But again, any sims will never be 100% accurate true to life, same goes for iracing and the rest. There will always be other things missing that people will ask over and over. PD updating their own game after its official release, already shows me their attention to this aspect, as well as what we have at the moment is already more than enough for the PS3 system.

If there's anything the Cell would *not* be bad at, it is physics calculations. I'm sure PS4 will allow for better physics, because it does have a much newer and better CPU, but "pound-for-pound", compared to its competitor in the previous gen (xb360), the PS3 performs very well at tasks similar to physics simulation.

GT6 is attempting to simulate reality, that makes it a simulator. It is not a perfect sim, but no game is. There are also better sim games, but not on PS3, which could indicate that it's not easy to get a lot more accurate physics on PS3 than what GT6 offers. There are some elements in the game that makes it less serious as a racing game, but this isn't part of the physics model, but rather a series of dumb game design choices put on top of them. This includes no easy way to practice with tire wear and fuel consumption, poor vehicle selections for other AI drivers, rubberband AI, and so on.

 

[TomBrady]

I think the core driving physics and force feedback are definitely simulation but there are a lot of simcade, or inaccurate issues in GT6 as well. I don't think that makes it a simcade though.

To me whether a game is a sim or not is entirely dependant upon the driving physics and the force feedback. There are other ways GT6 could be more of a racing sim, but it's definitely a driving sim at least

 

[JoaoSilva]

Responding to the Poll , i think GT6 is a simulator , hell people that win GT Academy go on to win real life races so that must mean GT is doing something right. It's not perfect but it's very good .

 

[Pseudopod]

Yes. Even if it isn't the best, it is the best anyone's done on a previous gen console. That counts for something.

 

[MSTER232]

Gear changes when using paddle shifters or buttons on a controller are much too quick if the car doesn't have a double or triple clutch plate. The physics when losing grip feel very strange, esp with more grippier tyres. Weight transfer seems to not matter much as most cars seem to be always stable even when driving aggressively. Slicks have way too much grip. The clutch is horrible. All this makes GT6 simcade IMO.

 

[Pseudopod]

The gear shifts aren't *that* quick. I mean they're very consistently at the fastest possible speed one could ever hope to shift, but it's really not that inaccurate, I find. What's more unrealistic is how precise and consistent the automatic rev matching is when using paddles/gamepad buttons

 

[TomBrady]

That's your opinion, because I myself consider GT6 as a simulation. It doesn't have to be at the same level as the best simulations, it just needs to be a simulation that simulates better and better with each new GT's.
Also Hickupz, it's not about the votes. He has the right to express his opinion. Maybe he hates GT or I don't know, but that doesn't mean he hasn't the right to post
We just have to avoid going on circles then it is ok.

I completely agree.

To me the most important part of any sim is feel. If it doesn't feel realistic, I couldn't care less if it has every detail 1:1 with real life. A sim could have the most accurate physics, but all of that is worthless if it doesn't feel realistic, and somehow compensate for the fact that even the best sim rigs can't communicate everything to the driver.

To me, GT6 is one of the sims that does this. It's one of the few sims that really feel realistic on a wheel, and really feel natural especially when it comes to the tires. I think Assetto Corsa, LFS, GT6, and to a lesser extent R3E get it right. And also pCars if I can get the FFB set up right but I only just got it so the verdict is still out on that one.

Iracing is right up there too, but it seriously lacks road feel. Unless you're losing grip, you don't feel the tires contacting the road at all, and that's a big issue in my opinion. It makes racing boring and it's why I don't play iracing as much anymore.

After playing Assetto Corsa and LFS, iracing just doesn't feel adequate enough to me. It's a shame because of how much money I put into that sim, and how it's hands down the best RACING sim there is but I'm just disappointed with the FFB still.

 

[super_gt]

Does someone want to try something interesting?

 

[MrGrado]

Now after the release of Project CARS I want to know what do you think about GT6 physics and would you change your vote.

The things that Pcars has that GT doesn't that make it "more simulation" like the ability to adjust front left suspension separate from front right or adjusting tyre pressure are, in my opinion, very niche adjustments. I don't see any tunes or setup in Pcars forums let alone discussion on these elements and how to adjust them to optimise performance and if it turns out that basically everyone will run all 4 tyres at min tyre pressure all of the time in all cars, then I don't see the use for having the option there in the first place.

GT has, in my opinion, things that make it "more simulation" than Pcars, like camera perspective that dips under braking and many more things which are not only there for more immersion but improve the players connection to their car to allow high performance driving. This is far more important, in my opinion, than many, if not all, the fancy "simulation" features in Pcars.

The physics of Pcars, in my opinion, is far worse than GT. The level of caution needed with the accelerator is far too high and level of caution needed generally is too high. The idea that sims are supposed to be hard makes no sense to me at all when real driving is so easy.

So my opinion of GT has not changed. I still think GT is good, I don't have real racing experience but I have formed my opinion on GT by comparing it to other games and I guess from real driving experience to some extent.



Edit: there are setups in Pcars forums and the first tune I look at has a completely symmetrical setup other than one value... Tuned by someone who seems to championing how much better Pcars is than GT...

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Does someone want to try something interesting?

A drift car ?

This is more like it :

BMW E82 1M Coupe Replica
135i Coupe version

Tuned to replicate BMW E82 1M Coupe
Comfort Soft​

View attachment 384424
​

CAR : BMW 135i Coupe '07
Tire : Comfort Soft

Specs Heaviest Running Weight
Horsepower: 335 HP at 5800 RPM
Torque : 331.4 ft-lb at 2800 RPM
Power Limiter at : 97.9%
Weight: 1611 kg
Ballast : 61 kg
Ballast Position : -50
Weight Distribution : 52 / 48 - as close as possible to 51.7/48.3
Performance Points: 468

GT AUTO
Oil change
Improve Body Rigidity ( NOT INSTALLED IN THIS BUILD )
Wheels : +1 Inch Up BBS RE-MG in Silver Chrome
Car Paint : White


Tuning Parts Installed :
Intake Tuning
Fully Customizable Dog Clutch Transmission
Adjustable LSD
Fully Customizable Suspension
Window Weight Reduction



Suspension - Real car Spring Ratio Adapted.
Front, Rear

Ride Height: 132 132
Spring Rate: 3.98 13.47
Dampers (Compression): 7 3
Dampers (Extension): 5 2
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 3
Camber Angle: 0.5 1.8
Toe Angle: 0.13 0.15

View attachment 384425
​

LSD - 1.5 way M Differential Lock LSD
Initial Torque : 20
Acceleration Sensitivity: 30
Braking Sensitivity: 13


DOG CLUTCH TRANSMISSION -Corrected 1M Gearing and Final from 2011 model year
Install all power parts
Set Default
Set Auto Max Speed at 330kmh / 205mph
Adjust each gear :
1st 4.110
2nd 2.315
3rd 1.542
4th 1.179
5th 1.000
6th 0.846
Set Final : 2.910 - corrected final to account for the wheel size difference.



Brake Balance:
4/5 ( personal BB) or for ABS 0 wheel : 4/5, for ABS 1 - feel free to use your preferred brake balance. I recommend to run 1 click higher at the rear.

Recommended setting for DS3 user :

Steering sensitivity at +1 or +2, all aids off, except ABS 1 ( if not comfortable with ABS 0 ) with 4/5 brake balance as starting point.

Notes :


Notes coming soon

My last play was racing at expert level FR seasonal at Willow Springs, driving my BMW 1 Series M coupe replica ( new build ) on CS with mere 466PP ( worn oil 330HP, 1600+kg, yellow worn chassis ) managed to win by doing BTCC style battle against the leader ( C7 Stingray ), got the lead in lap 5 1st turn, but the crazy ass mofo C7 AI is within my tailpipe until the last turn to finish, he pulled several bumping move, tried to pit me from inside, and the last turn, he tried to ram from the side on exit. I failed several times battling in the last turn and came in 2nd, but the last one, I became aggressive and hold the inside, blocking his line, he got crazy swerving left and right like hyper dog, and I had to keep blocking till finish line

The BMW 1 Series M coupe replica did consistent low 1:30s lap, and will need to finish the race in less than 8:10s time It's a real driver test race, where smooth is quick and passing is tricky to pull, especially on the 5th to 2nd car ( in packs ) and the leader C7 which can only be passed by doing late braking pass on last lap 1st turn, Gan-san / Motoharu Kurosawa style from Best Motoring ( get into the inside of his door side and held it to pass as you exit, forcing him to go wide and back off ) If the driver missed this chance to pass, it will be near impossible to pass the leader as the rest of the lap, even if the BMW can get close on corner entry, on the high speed corners and exit, the C7 will simply pull away with sheer power even if the BMW can draft within a car length.

Another run with 1M replica, this time with 135i version, at 335HP, 1611kg, 468PP, on CS tire, the 2nd car ( Alfa Romeo 8C this time ) was hot on my rear bumper to finish line, he tried to pit me several times on the last lap, talk about dirty Bob He couldn't get closer on the first half of the last lap. Managed several 1:29s lap at Big Willow
Last lap, last half, the dirty Bob attacks :
View attachment 385110
And I went offroad and tried my best to get back on the tarmac to keep leading :
View attachment 385111
Another attempt to get me off the race, right before entering the last turn to finish :
View attachment 385112
This time, I managed to stay on the inside line and maintain the best possible speed to finish line with the crazy Bob hot on my tail.
View attachment 385113

 

[Johnnypenso]

The things that Pcars has that GT doesn't that make it "more simulation" like the ability to adjust front left suspension separate from front right or adjusting tyre pressure are, in my opinion, very niche adjustments. I don't see any tunes or setup in Pcars forums let alone discussion on these elements and how to adjust them to optimise performance and if it turns out that basically everyone will run all 4 tyres at min tyre pressure all of the time in all cars, then I don't see the use for having the option there in the first place.

That's not how it works and it's far from a niche adjustment. Tires have a narrow optimum range where the grip is maximized. Under or over and you lose grip. Many, many things affect tire temperatures including track ambient temperatures, brake duct opening sizes, camber, toe, brake balance, sway bars, overall balance of the car, driving style and of course tire pressure. Tire pressures work best in an optimum range. To have an effective racing tune, the tune has to make the car operate in the tire temperature range that provides the maximum grip. In other words, it simulates real life. In GT the tuning is much more simplistic with far fewer parameters. Tires overheat only for a second or two and then magically lose all the accumulated heat in a second or two. Throw in tire temperatures, double or triple the number of tuning parameters, and make many of those tuning parameters affect tire temperatures, overall grip and balance and it's a whole new ball game. I'm still figuring out how everything interacts and probably will be for a long time.

GT has, in my opinion, things that make it "more simulation" than Pcars, like camera perspective that dips under braking and many more things which are not only there for more immersion but improve the players connection to their car to allow high performance driving. This is far more important, in my opinion, than many, if not all, the fancy "simulation" features in Pcars.

High speed shake, G force effects and world movement are completely tunable in Project Cars, from zero to crazy and everything in between. Also included are helmet cam views with tunable look-to-apex, helmet lean, camera lean and more. Motion blur is also there and fully tunable as well, on PC only though. Every single camera view, including all the exterior cams, has a separate FOV adjustment, independent from all the other views. On top of that, there's a speed sensitivity adjustment available that will narrow your FOV when going slow for a more realistic slow corner speed appearance, while widening the FOV at high speed to give a more pronounced sense of speed that people often prefer. Best of both worlds and it comes with 4 separate tunable parameters. Of course you can turn it off too if you like.

Frankly, if you're looking for options that provide immersion as you indicated, Project Cars makes GT look not only last gen, but probably 2 gens old. Your interface with the game is completely tunable to your personal preference.

The physics of Pcars, in my opinion, is far worse than GT. The level of caution needed with the accelerator is far too high and level of caution needed generally is too high. The idea that sims are supposed to be hard makes no sense to me at all when real driving is so easy.

Physics are not an opinion, they are facts. Have you played the game? The physics in Project Cars are light years ahead of GT. The tire model alone makes it heads above GT without question. All the tuning actually works. The tuning descriptions work exactly as described. Throttle response is not an on/off switch and it's volumetric, responding to air pressure changes from ambient temperatures and elevation. Slipstreaming can create dirty air and destablize your car a little. Top speeds and accelerations values are realistic. I've noticed some cars lean when you hit the throttle because they simulated engine inertia. The clutch actually works. The Boss Mustang pulls to one side while accelerating. Why? Because it has a live axle with a panhard bar and that's what the car does in real life..and they simulated it!! Need I go on?

A drift car ?

This is more like it :

It's not a drift car. @super_gt has a severe dislike with GT's general understeery nature and it's lack of direct response from the front end, and often compensates this by boosting the front end up one tire grade.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

That's not how it works and it's far from a niche adjustment. Tires have a narrow optimum range where the grip is maximized. Under or over and you lose grip. Many, many things affect tire temperatures including track ambient temperatures, brake duct opening sizes, camber, toe, brake balance, sway bars, overall balance of the car, driving style and of course tire pressure. Tire pressures work best in an optimum range. To have an effective racing tune, the tune has to make the car operate in the tire temperature range that provides the maximum grip. In other words, it simulates real life. In GT you tune for grip and balance only which is quite simplistic. Throw in tire temperatures, double or triple the number of tuning parameters, and make many of those tuning parameters affect tire temperatures, overall grip and balance and it's a whole new ball game. I'm still figuring out how everything interacts and probably will be for a long time.

G force effects are completely tunable in Project Cars, from zero to crazy and everything in between. Also included are helmet cam views with tunable look-to-apex, helmet lean and more. Motion blur is also there and fully tunable as well, on PC only though.

Have you played the game? The physics in Project Cars are light years ahead of GT. The tire model alone makes it heads above GT without question. All the tuning actually works. The tuning descriptions work exactly as described. Throttle response is not an on/off switch and it's volumetric, responding to air pressure changes from ambient temperatures and elevation. Slipstreaming can create dirty air and destablize your car a little. Top speeds and accelerations values are realistic. I've noticed some cars lean when you hit the throttle because they simulated engine inertia. The clutch actually works. The Boss Mustang pulls to one side while accelerating. Why? Because it has a live axle with a panhard bar and that's what the car does in real life..and they simulated it!! Need I go on?

It's not a drift car. @super_gt has a severe dislike with GT's general understeery nature and it's lack of direct response from the front end, and often compensates this by boosting the front end up on tire grade.

I have tried the tune at Big Willow, the grip balance is a mess, too much at the front, and more suited for sliding out of a corner. Using the real car spring ratio, alignment and weight distribution is more of a better option IMO. The 1M for example has more than 3 times stiffer rear spring than the front IRL, this helped a lot with the handling balance, similar to the E92 M3. I don't feel any lack of front response or that much understeer as I can win the expert seasonal at big Willow on CS tire 1:29 - 1:30s lap time on average.

For Pcars, I have played a bit, some of the road and race cars already have the wrong data ( spring rate, caster for example ), say what's the stock spring rate of BMW 1M coupe ? This is very important as the real car has unique arrangement due to the suspension design and handling balance goal.

Some other cars that have wrong spring rate/caster : Clio Cup ( uses MK3 spring rate on MK4 car, wrong caster, gear ratio, damper value too high ), Evo X FQ400 ( spring rate is too high and caster too high )

 

[Johnnypenso]

I have tried the tune at Big Willow, the grip balance is a mess, too much at the front, and more suited for sliding out of a corner. Using the real car spring ratio, alignment and weight distribution is more of a better option IMO. The 1M for example has more than 3 times stiffer rear spring than the front IRL, this helped a lot with the handling balance, similar to the E92 M3. I don't feel any lack of front response or that much understeer as I can win the expert seasonal at big Willow on CS tire 1:29 - 1:30s lap time on average.

I didn't say whether the tune was good or bad but I'm sure @super_gt would be more than willing to put it to the test if you like.

For Pcars, I have played a bit, some of the road and race cars already have the wrong data ( spring rate, caster for example ), say what's the stock spring rate of BMW 1M coupe ? This is very important as the real car has unique arrangement due to the suspension design and handling balance goal.

Some other cars that have wrong spring rate/caster : Clio Cup ( uses MK3 spring rate on MK4 car, wrong caster, gear ratio, damper value too high ), Evo X FQ400 ( spring rate is too high and caster too high )

Many of the cars come pre-tuned, with suspension set-ups that are "safe", mainly for pad drivers. This has been mentioned many times in the various PCars forums by many members. If the cars cannot be adjusted to match real life settings then that would be a bigger problem. If that's the case, there is an entire forum for you to report these mistakes and many members of the dev team are there on a daily basis.
http://forum.projectcarsgame.com/forum.php

How do GT's stock settings line up? Does ever car in the real world come with 0.60 rear toe?

 

[Johnnypenso]

My mistake on the last couple of posts. After reading @MrGrado 's opinion on PCars I thought we were in this thread by mistake. Sorry for off topic

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I didn't say whether the tune was good or bad but I'm sure @super_gt would be more than willing to put it to the test if you like.

Many of the cars come pre-tuned, with suspension set-ups that are "safe", mainly for pad drivers. This has been mentioned many times in the various PCars forums by many members. If the cars cannot be adjusted to match real life settings then that would be a bigger problem. If that's the case, there is an entire forum for you to report these mistakes and many members of the dev team are there on a daily basis.
http://forum.projectcarsgame.com/forum.php

How do GT's stock settings line up? Does ever car in the real world come with 0.60 rear toe?

I already drive it and honestly didn't drive to my liking at all, very prone to oversteer, so no further test necessary.

I have talked to some Pcars player ( one might be WMD member ) here, and on road cars, spring rate is locked and clio cup also has locked spring rate as well as caster. I don't have Pcars, so I don't have much interest in fixing, it's the devs job to make sure the specs are correct.

Keep mocking GT with that jab, I don't mind Pcars also have the typical 0.1 or 0.2 toe values on most cars

The 190E Evo II DTM also seems to be off in some parts 1992 Evo II has 373HP, 1040kg Minimum DTM weight, very stiff springs ( 300+N/mm front and 200+N/mm rear are common ) The Gr G springs are still offered today ( 200N/mm - 300+N/mm ). Typical 190E DTM runs stiff front ARB and no rear ARB. There are 2 LSD spec on 190E ( at least on the road car ), 32% lock and the electronic LSD capable 1-100% lock. Most runs very high front camber in the 4-5 range and rear 2-3+ camber.
Road car EVO II have 53% front, the DTM supposedly have more than 55% front empty ( weight reductions ). The final drive options for the DTM were in range from 3.67 - 5.44 ( pcars should give this range adjustment )



Pcars should be able to implement these in the 190E DTM and still perform well like IRL ( which won many races )

 

[MrGrado]

Physics are not an opinion, they are facts.

That's your opinion.

It's the way some of the "sim features" in Pcars seem to be programmed that seems to be the problem. For example, you seem to be able to crash your car fairly heavily one time without suffering any performance issues, but a few much lighter wall hits and your car is undrivable. Pcars has car damage, but seems to be programmed very poorly. Same with engine failures. I had a mid engine race car that I increased boost on and it blew the engine on the 3rd lap. I restarted and drove much more conservatively (part throttle and shift in mid RPM) and it still blew up with the same amount of laps. So I tried to blow the engine on first lap by carving up but couldn't. It's like engine failures are defined by engine boost and distance. It feels like there is this "one line of code approach" right through the game that spoils it for me.