GT6 Top Speeds Are Not Realistic, Please Fix PD!

Air resistance is R * v² where v is the speedof the air flow.

Assuming no wind if you got "1" air resistance @ 1 km/h, you will have :
- 4 @ 2 km/h
- 9 @ 3km/h
...
- 72900 @270km/h

That's a normal situation to me. If they got it wrong by a tiny portion at low speed, then at high speed this became a big fraction.

e.g instead of 1, they used 0.99 => the 72900 becomes 72171 (diff = 729)
at 271, diff = 734.41
at 272, diff grows again to 739.84, etc


Again, perfectly normal there. Sea level air.

The altitude of a track, temperature (so, day and nigth) and % humidity (day & nigth again) play an important part in the "R" factor of R * v². Not to mention the wind, there's some transversal wind on SSX aswell.
A stock Corvette Stingray '14 (arcade mode, courtesy car) will hit >230mph on the flat part of that track!
No air humidity difference, air density difference or air temperature difference can account for that, even if they are simulated in GT6, something that I highly doubt anyway.

Also, the fact that the draft is as strong at SSRX as it is any other track implies that draft is a (positive, relative to the motion) force, seperate from the actual air resistance model, rather than a reduction of the actual resistance.
 
I've discussed this with my other real good tuning friend. Some of the conclusions we've came up with are- in gt5 we didn't have stage 3 weight reduction & almost all the cars have higher hp numbers. Not saying this is an answer to why they are faster. Just me & my friends opinion.

Also to say gt5 was more realistic than 6 is ludacris. While some cars are faster in 6, there are some that we're just stupidly slow in 5. Could barely break 195mph in the Ford Lightning. Now its like 230+

Just saying I'm more happy with gt6 spreds than I am with 5's. A lot of old muscle cars are faster which I believe is more realistic. If you put a supercharger & weight reduction on a old car it's going to go faster than 195 guaranteed
 
I've discussed this with my other real good tuning friend. Some of the conclusions we've came up with are- in gt5 we didn't have stage 3 weight reduction & almost all the cars have higher hp numbers. Not saying this is an answer to why they are faster. Just me & my friends opinion.

Also to say gt5 was more realistic than 6 is ludacris. While some cars are faster in 6, there are some that we're just stupidly slow in 5. Could barely break 195mph in the Ford Lightning. Now its like 230+

Just saying I'm more happy with gt6 spreds than I am with 5's. A lot of old muscle cars are faster which I believe is more realistic. If you put a supercharger & weight reduction on a old car it's going to go faster than 195 guaranteed

The thing is, we aren't comparing cars, we are comparing car specs...it's the engine power that's mainly taken into account. With 490HP (SL 55 AMG) you can't achieve ~370 kph in real life. This is not possible.
 
I've discussed this with my other real good tuning friend. Some of the conclusions we've came up with are- in gt5 we didn't have stage 3 weight reduction & almost all the cars have higher hp numbers. Not saying this is an answer to why they are faster. Just me & my friends opinion.

Also to say gt5 was more realistic than 6 is ludacris. While some cars are faster in 6, there are some that we're just stupidly slow in 5. Could barely break 195mph in the Ford Lightning. Now its like 230+

Just saying I'm more happy with gt6 spreds than I am with 5's. A lot of old muscle cars are faster which I believe is more realistic. If you put a supercharger & weight reduction on a old car it's going to go faster than 195 guaranteed

GT5 had Stage 3 weight reduction (And besides, weight does not matter nearly as much as drag at high speeds)
*Ludicrous
The Ford Lightning should not be able to go like 230mph
No, old muscle cars really were not that powerful and even then they are gear limited in terms of top speed.
 
A stock Corvette Stingray '14 (arcade mode, courtesy car) will hit >230mph on the flat part of that track!
No air humidity difference, air density difference or air temperature difference can account for that, even if they are simulated in GT6, something that I highly doubt anyway.

Also, the fact that the draft is as strong at SSRX as it is any other track implies that draft is a (positive, relative to the motion) force, seperate from the actual air resistance model, rather than a reduction of the actual resistance.
You're rigth about the C7, she does 235mph / 378kph, she's suposed to do 201mph in reality.

But... In reality she also supposed to do 1496kg (1500kg in GT6) + the fuel (GT6 count that) + the driver (GT6 doesn't count that).
Say the driver is 80kg, with a fuel tank of 70l / 18.5 gal, that makes 52.85kg for the fuel.

GT6 the ingame car weigths 1552.85kg, in reality, she weigths 1628.85 kg. That makes +4.89%.
201mph +4.89 = 211mph (still).

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2014/1913105/chevrolet_corvette_stingray_7-speed.html

Now with a bough corvette, I've got a tranny problem that make impossible to get the same tranny. Anyway : 235mph / 378kph flat just before the tunnel.

With a 80kg ballast, same speed but long after the tunnel.

The tranny is not the same at all anyway so comparaison stops there...
 
GT6 the ingame car weigths 1552.85kg, in reality, she weigths 1628.85 kg. That makes +4.89%.
201mph +4.89 = 211mph (still).
n725075089_288918_2774.jpg
 
Yeah the compairison was really "au doigt mouillé" (= ballpark estimate). That's why I made tests :)
 
Last edited:
Well I did some more testing, and the results are really bad. :(

I loaded up GT5 and tested certain cars. I looked for their absolute maximum speeds on the downhill at SSRX, which is often faster than the cars will pull themselves on a level surface, but wanted to see just what the potential maximum difference was between titles.

F40 in GT5: 334km/h. GT6: 371km/h! NSX-R GT5: 290km/h GT6: 318km/h! Ford GT GT5: 355km/h GT6: 399km/h!

It's just ridiculous really, the top speeds in GT6 are completely unrealistic, and GT5 gave us a much better representation of top speed vs real life. The Ford GT is now modeled with the correct 5th gear ratio (vs the wrong one in GT5 ) meaning it pulls 6th gear quicker but the other two have absolutely no changes to ratios between the titles.

Also, I tested the LFA and found that it would pull itself to the rev limiter on the downhill in GT5 achieving 345km/h, but in GT6 it can pull itself to the same speed before you even hit the hump! So the cars are accelerating far harder than before which would again seem to point the finger at aero and drag being the cause.

I'll test at other circuits now, because I'm REALLY hoping that this is just an issue with SSRX. Because if it's the same at all circuits then it is 🤬!!!

I want a realistic driving simulator, not a game that seeks to satisfy 9 year olds with stupidly high top speed figures! :(
I'm sorry but we are saying a car is unrealistic on a unrealistic, perfectly flat track in non-existence? Sorry but I think that's how I'm making it out to be..
 
GT5 had Stage 3 weight reduction (And besides, weight does not matter nearly as much as drag at high speeds)
*Ludicrous
The Ford Lightning should not be able to go like 230mph
No, old muscle cars really were not that powerful and even then they are gear limited in terms of top speed.
Maybe not stock. But when you add anything especially in stages. It'll go faster. Make sense? ive also noticed most cars have more hp than in gt5. I know plenty of Lightnings here in TX that could do it. 800hp & up
 
Last edited:
"For high velocities (or more precisely, at high Reynolds number) drag will vary as the square of velocity. Thus, the resultant power needed to overcome this drag will vary as the cube of velocity."

I think they got the power-cubed part wrong.

e31430f0898268091f410282a89503b1.png
 
tuj
"For high velocities (or more precisely, at high Reynolds number) drag will vary as the square of velocity. Thus, the resultant power needed to overcome this drag will vary as the cube of velocity."

I think they got the power-cubed part wrong.

e31430f0898268091f410282a89503b1.png

v is the speed of the air flow, same as the vehicle only if not under slipstream and no wind.

For the corvette, i think there's mainly a gearbox problem, I'll test that tonigth.
 
sorry what I meant is that the Pd (power demand) increases at the cubic of velocity. I wonder if they are only doing it at the square of velocity? Or they have some drag function that needs tweaking because my in-game Supra should not be able to do 284mph with 850hp. Its almost like drag doesn't kick in until over 200mph. I don't know, but its definitely broken.
 
Also, the fact that the draft is as strong at SSRX as it is any other track implies that draft is a (positive, relative to the motion) force, seperate from the actual air resistance model, rather than a reduction of the actual resistance.

I'm not following this. The draft be as strong on SSRX as it is anywhere. Also, adding a force to the car (as long as it's correctly calculated) is exactly the same as lowering the drag force.


YZF
The thing is, we aren't comparing cars, we are comparing car specs...it's the engine power that's mainly taken into account. With 490HP (SL 55 AMG) you can't achieve ~370 kph in real life. This is not possible.
Did you mean that 490 can't push any car past that speed, or just te SL55?
490 hp is enough to reach hundreds of mph. It's certainly enough to beat a Veyron in a drag race. It depends on the rest of the car.

GT6 the ingame car weigths 1552.85kg, in reality, she weigths 1628.85 kg. That makes +4.89%.
201mph +4.89 = 211mph (still).
The change in weight will make so little difference in speed that it's typically rounded to 0. The top speed issue is very very likely something to do with drag.

tuj
sorry what I meant is that the Pd (power demand) increases at the cubic of velocity. I wonder if they are only doing it at the square of velocity? Or they have some drag function that needs tweaking because my in-game Supra should not be able to do 284mph with 850hp. Its almost like drag doesn't kick in until over 200mph. I don't know, but its definitely broken.
The power relationship would just be backed out of the physics if the force relationship is correct. They're just different expressions of the same thing. They can't have the drag force correct, but the drag power incorrect.
 
Did you mean that 490 can't push any car past that speed, or just te SL55?
490 hp is enough to reach hundreds of mph. It's certainly enough to beat a Veyron in a drag race. It depends on the rest of the car.

490HP (in any car) is not enough to reach 230mph. And it's certainly not enough to out-drag veyron (assuming we are talking about road cars i.e. with at least 1300kg/2900lbs of weight)

And it's better to compare the same car in GT6 and Real Life. So if you delimit (real) stock SL55AMG, it will do 202mph (not 230mph)

 
I'm not following this. The draft be as strong on SSRX as it is anywhere.
Let me rephrase:
If draft was simulated realisticly it should act as a reduction of drag, yes?
If drag at SSRX is strongly reduced compared to other tracks (as I argue), the draft effect should also be strongly reduced there.

Also, adding a force to the car (as long as it's correctly calculated) is exactly the same as lowering the drag force.
Ideally yes, but when the forces vary independently you get results like the one we're discussing here.
There's also the matter of reduction in downforce which should be connected to the reduction in drag, but that's a different story altogether.
 
YZF
490HP (in any car) is not enough to reach 230mph.

It all depends on how much drag is produced. 490 HP at 230 mph equates to about 800 lbf. A car with about 20 ft^2 (sports car size) frontal area and CD of .3 (good, but achievable car drag coefficient) would be able to reach 230 mph with 490 HP if the gearing was done correctly.

And it's certainly not enough to out-drag veyron (assuming we are talking about road cars i.e. with at least 1300kg/2900lbs of weight)
Probably not at that weight no, but as with top speed, you can find a weight that will work. 490 HP is about half the Veyron's power, so half the weight works, or a little more than 2000 lbs, which is about how much older Elise and Miatas weighed.

So a 490 hp Veyron crusher road car is quite possible, though it might be an expensive car itself.



Let me rephrase:
If draft was simulated realisticly it should act as a reduction of drag, yes?
If drag at SSRX is strongly reduced compared to other tracks (as I argue), the draft effect should also be strongly reduced there.
I understand now.
 
I haven't seen another thread discussing any possible changes to drag coeficient and aero in general yet, and after some car testing I did today I wanted to put this up for discussion.

Just bought the F40 in GT6 and set it up just as I had it in GT5. 472hp, stock gearing, stage 3 weight reduction to get it down to that early F40 1100-1200kg weight range. A twin plate clutch fitted because real life cars came with one. Now the top speed of this car is supposed to be around 200mph and in GT5 that was certainly the case. It would almost achieve this speed in 4th before just being able to pull it's 5th gear, so tall was the gearing. And yet, in GT6 this car pulls right through all its gears and does over 370km/h!!

What gives? PD has not changed displayed ratios at all in the car settings section. They are the same as they were in GT5, and are the correct F40 ratios despite many wanting to argue in other threads that they are not. The car had an accurate top speed before and now it's just not accurate for a stock car, way too fast.

Has anyone else noticed that the cars in general are more slippery in GT6 or something? I'm going to do more testing with other cars but for the moment I can only assume that PD has not modeled drag very well in GT6 or something. Your thoughts everyone?
Well for a start STAGE 3 WEIGHT REDUCTION, which totally isn't "stock", might have something to do with it.
 
Really makes me wonder whether it's a simple bug or a by-product of the new physics engine which they choose to ignore in order not to break the rest of it. Regardless, it's starting to get really annoying.
 
Wouldn't "sea level air" be less conducive to high speed testing (assuming GT6 modeled it, which, come on) rather than more?


Well for a start STAGE 3 WEIGHT REDUCTION, which totally isn't "stock", might have something to do with it.

So you missed the part where he explained why he did it?
 
The change in weight will make so little difference in speed that it's typically rounded to 0. The top speed issue is very very likely something to do with drag.
I agree it's not weigth, I made test after that gross evaluation. There's no speed change at all with a ballast of "80kg as a driver".
I still think the main diffenrece vs reality is the gearbox.

Following tests are if I got it rigth :

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/2014/1913105/chevrolet_corvette_stingray_7-speed.html -> go to the gearbox spec
Reality Gearbox:

Tremec TR6070
Transmission type: manual
Number of gears: 7

Gear ratios (overall):
I - 2.97 (10.16) -> x final = 8.613
II - 2.07 (7.08) -> x final = 6.003
III - 1.43 (4.89) -> x final = 4.147
IV - 1 (3.42) -> x final = 2.9
V - 0.71 (2.43) -> x final = 2.059
VI - 0.57 (1.95) -> x final = 1.653 => ingame top speed there
VII - 0.48 (1.64) -> x final = 1.392
VIII ---

R 2.9

Speed range
(max speed on gears, top gear value theor.):
(km/h/mph)
I: 83 / 52
II: 119 / 74
III: 173 / 108
IV: 247 / 154
V: 348 / 216
VI: 433 / 269 => ingame topspeed = 235 there
VII: 515 / 320
VIII: ---

Ok now the game gives a default VI x final gearbox @1.939, by far not the same number

With a gearbox approaching the one from reality (can't really do the exact same):
final @5
autoset @480 kph
I - 1.901 (should be 1.722, this is +10%)
II - 1.282 (should be 1.200, this is +7%)
III - 0.874 (should be 0.829, this is +5%)
IV - 0.649 (should be 0.580, this is +11%)
V - 0.504 (should be 0.412, this is +22%)
VI - 0.408 (should be 0.330, this is +23%)
VII - 0.296 (should be 0.278, this is +6%)
final - stays @5.

no ballast : 232mph / 374kph in the VI.
+ 90kg ballast (like they does) : 232mph / 374kph

Let's try a different approach... Reset the gearbox, let's choose the best autoset that is close to final x VII in reality : 1.392.
--> autoset @480
--> VII @ 0.434
--> final @ 3.207 (which gives 1.392 for the VII)
--> let's find the VI then : 1.653 / 3.207 = 0.515 -> the game don't allow that.
--> let's put the V at min.

Let's run this :
From I to VII directly since the begining (pass 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) => gives 207mph / 333 kph before the curve after the tunnel (with the same 90kg ballast @+10)

=> So the aero "problem" gives only 6mph more to the car. (assuming temperature, altitude plays a role, no bugs in the torque/power plot, no bugs in the engine, then nobody really knows).
The only thing we can tell for sure is the 2014 Corvette C7's gearbox is severly messed up, and maybe it's the same for other cars.
 
Last edited:
I could start from the VI to find the final then adjust the VII... No time for this 2:40 am here. Somebody try this if he will...

Not being able to have the same gearbox mean not being able to use the same differential values, meaning most of the car's handling and accel is a fantasy for that car (and maybe others).
 
Damn it my gearbox tests are not rigth. Reality final is 3.420, not 2.9. Must restart everything, that will be tomorow.


edit - stock gearbox is 100% rigth. Going from 1 to 7 direct with the ballast gives 363kph / 226mph in the 7. Is it a tire problem ?
She's got 285/30 ZR 20 in the rear => diameter is 679mm / 26.7in. xPi = 2.133m per wheel turn, or 2.133/1.64 = 1.3m/rpm in 7.

At 363kph, she's around 4.800rpm using the replay. 1.3m/rpm mean 6240m/4800rpm
6240m in a minute mean 374.4kph, comparing to 363 with my gross 4800rpm evaluation that seems to be rigth aswell...

Where is that bug ? It seems that the aero is, yes, the only part left in the equation. There's no air on Road X ? Why the 908 aero parts works like they works then ?
 
Last edited:
It all depends on how much drag is produced. 490 HP at 230 mph equates to about 800 lbf. A car with about 20 ft^2 (sports car size) frontal area and CD of .3 (good, but achievable car drag coefficient) would be able to reach 230 mph with 490 HP if the gearing was done correctly.

Your equation is wrong. I haven't seen a (road) car which would be able to achieve 230mph with such engine. It's not possible and as I already wrote in previous post: SL55AMG has a top speed of 202mph not 230mph. Period.
 
Damn it my gearbox tests are not rigth. Reality final is 3.420, not 2.9. Must restart everything, that will be tomorow.


edit - stock gearbox is 100% rigth. Going from 1 to 7 direct with the ballast gives 363kph / 226mph in the 7. Is it a tire problem ?
She's got 285/30 ZR 20 in the rear => diameter is 679mm / 26.7in. xPi = 2.133m per wheel turn, or 2.133/1.64 = 1.3m/rpm in 7.

At 363kph, she's around 4.800rpm using the replay. 1.3m/rpm mean 6240m/4800rpm
6240m in a minute mean 374.4kph, comparing to 363 with my gross 4800rpm evaluation that seems to be rigth aswell...

Where is that bug ? It seems that the aero is, yes, the only part left in the equation. There's no air on Road X ? Why the 908 aero parts works like they works then ?
Because downforce is modelled seperately.
That's the reason you don't lose any downforce when drafting, as you should.

The game probably isn't modeling air to calculate drag, the cars will have CD's which will apply a force on them that grows with speed. Any issue with downforce is probably unrelated. Right now it looks like cars don't have the correct CD.

It could also be that the real CD changes significantly at high speed and this change isn't reflected in game, but I don't think this is the issue as large changes would probably only become noticeable at 300+ mph, which the cars shouldn't be reaching in the first place.

YZF
Your equation is wrong. I haven't seen a (road) car which would be able to achieve 230mph with such engine. It's not possible and as I already wrote in previous post: SL55AMG has a top speed of 202mph not 230mph. Period.
Having not seen a road car do 230 mph with 490 HP doesn't say much. My math works out. I'm not saying that the SL55 should reach 230 mph, but that 490 hp is enough to reach 230 mph (and that is true of any amount of HP since required power is related to drag which can be anything from 0 to infinity.

In the case of the SL55, it has a very good CD and frontal area only slightly bigger than the one I used in my calculation, but if you look at the gearing, it's not at peak power at 200 mph and according to Car and Driver, the car hits redline at 205. My hypothetical car essentially has a flat powerband, the engine makes 490 HP at every RPM and doesn't need to worry about redline.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/mercedes-benz-sl55-amg.pdf
 
Wouldn't "sea level air" be less conducive to high speed testing (assuming GT6 modeled it, which, come on) rather than more?




So you missed the part where he explained why he did it?
It still might help if he restores stock weight, it could make a huge difference
 
Last edited:
@YZF quoted flywheel power :sly:
I assumed 85% power transmission to the wheels

It still might help if he restores stock weight, it could make a huge difference
The weight reduction weight is closer to real life, also weight won't change the top speed.

Maybe it doesn't take the tyre rolling resistance? Maybe it's the problem with this, not the aero drag?
Rolling resistance is too small to make so much difference.
 
Back