How good is the new PP scale at measuring performance?

[RWB1213]

I run a weekly GT5 racing league with friends. Up until now, we have used a HP restriction to balance the field. Now that we have PP, I'd like to switch over to simply a PP restriction (which if calculated right would serve to better balance the field.) But does the PP calculation work?

I did some checking, and several cars I have that meet our specs (350hp) have confusing PP values.
NSX - 499
Z4 Coupe - 561
RX7 Spirit - 570
Audi TTS - 555

I haven't tested with all the cars on many tracks, but generally speaking the NSX is the fastest out of the group, and yet it has a much lower PP. All cars are running racing softs.

The problem is, if I move over to PP to create the spec, the NSX only stands to increase it's advantage (either by lower the performance of the others, or raising the performance of the NSX.)

What is your experience with PP? Am I missing something?

 

[esoxhntr]

Are you sure those numbers are correct? Not saying you are wrong. Just, my experience with PP is very positive -- it's shown to bring the field much closer together. Closer than HP/Weight restrictions.

Be aware that the PP does not change instantly when you switch tires, you need to make another mod for it take effect on the screen (bug).

 

[charliec]

I run a weekly GT5 racing league with friends. Up until now, we have used a HP restriction to balance the field. Now that we have PP, I'd like to switch over to simply a PP restriction (which if calculated right would serve to better balance the field.) But does the PP calculation work?

I did some checking, and several cars I have that meet our specs (350hp) have confusing PP values.
NSX - 499
Z4 Coupe - 561
RX7 Spirit - 570
Audi TTS - 555

I haven't tested with all the cars on many tracks, but generally speaking the NSX is the fastest out of the group, and yet it has a much lower PP. All cars are running racing softs.

The problem is, if I move over to PP to create the spec, the NSX only stands to increase it's advantage (either by lower the performance of the others, or raising the performance of the NSX.)

What is your experience with PP? Am I missing something?

Well...I know that there are something not taken into consideration. The best example I can think of is an extreme one. Take an oval track like Indy and 2 identical RM'ed cars. Max out the downforce on one and minimize the downforce on another. The one with minimal downforce will have a lower PP and will also probably be faster because it has less drag.

This wouldn't apply to every course, as they get tighter and more technical, the downforce starts to outweigh the reduced drag.

Likewise, things like drive configuration (MR for NSX vs FR or AWD) can play a role in how a car handles and performs, and this can be magnified on certain tracks. These kind of things are hard to quantify though so it's not picked up by PP.

It's a rough system at best but better than nothing if you want to use it in my opinion. These flaws are present and exploited in real racing leagues as well so it's not necessarily a game bug.

 

[dark_ruffo]

Answering directly to the question on topic: Poor.

 

[RWB1213]

Well...I know that there are something not taken into consideration. The best example I can think of is an extreme one. Take an oval track like Indy and 2 identical RM'ed cars. Max out the downforce on one and minimize the downforce on another. The one with minimal downforce will have a lower PP and will also probably be faster because it has less drag.

This wouldn't apply to every course, as they get tighter and more technical, the downforce starts to outweigh the reduced drag.

Likewise, things like drive configuration (MR for NSX vs FR or AWD) can play a role in how a car handles and performs, and this can be magnified on certain tracks. These kind of things are hard to quantify though so it's not picked up by PP.

It's a rough system at best but better than nothing if you want to use it in my opinion. These flaws are present and exploited in real racing leagues as well so it's not necessarily a game bug.

So downforce settings (tuning) effects PP? Really? Does that hold true with suspension settings as well? I'm skeptical, but easy enough to test.

Shouldn't drive configuration be figured directly into a cars PP baseline? I'm not looking for a quantification by track, only by car. Shouldn't MR layout have a PP advantage if all else is equal? I would certainly think so. AWD should provide some baseline PP advantage but less so if the added weight is also included in the PP.

Tires effect PP, but only after applying another mod after? Can this allow you to glitch your way into a lobby with artificially low PP? For example, I upgrade my motor until I hit a spec/target PP value, and then simply apply the tires last so that it doesn't calculate into the total?

I know I'm being skeptical, but I'm really struggling with what the PP gives us as gamers. Thus far, it doesn't appear to be a very good performance reference.

 

[RWB1213]

Are you sure those numbers are correct? Not saying you are wrong. Just, my experience with PP is very positive -- it's shown to bring the field much closer together. Closer than HP/Weight restrictions.

Be aware that the PP does not change instantly when you switch tires, you need to make another mod for it take effect on the screen (bug).

The only one I'm absolutely sure of is the NSX (sort of, read on), but all the others were 40-50 PP points higher than the 499 NSX. Perhaps the tires weren't taken into account on the NSX- that would certainly explain the gap, or perhaps the last time I used the NSX was in a tire restricted race which auto-switched them down- I hate when it does that!!! That would make the most sense . . . I'll check tonight.

 

[esoxhntr]

So downforce settings (tuning) effects PP? Really? Does that hold true with suspension settings as well? I'm skeptical, but easy enough to test.

No, suspension does not affect. Yes, Downforce does.

Tires effect PP, but only after applying another mod after? Can this allow you to glitch your way into a lobby with artificially low PP? For example, I upgrade my motor until I hit a spec/target PP value, and then simply apply the tires last so that it doesn't calculate into the total?

No you will fail the pre-race-entry test. If you go back into tuning, you will see the new value. I think the 'glitch' just does not update the PP on the screen when you swap tires however, it does in the 'background'.

I know I'm being skeptical, but I'm really struggling with what the PP gives us as gamers. Thus far, it doesn't appear to be a very good performance reference.

It's not perfect. However, go into a PP restricted lobby and you'll notice a few things. a) bigger variety of cars on the track b) closer racing. IMO, well done PD. It's a vast improvement in my mind over HP/Weight restrictions if you're tired of everyone driving the Elise 111R in the 200-300hp class (or what have you).

 

[charliec]

So downforce settings (tuning) effects PP? Really? Does that hold true with suspension settings as well? I'm skeptical, but easy enough to test.

Shouldn't drive configuration be figured directly into a cars PP baseline? I'm not looking for a quantification by track, only by car. Shouldn't MR layout have a PP advantage if all else is equal? I would certainly think so. AWD should provide some baseline PP advantage but less so if the added weight is also included in the PP.

Tires effect PP, but only after applying another mod after? Can this allow you to glitch your way into a lobby with artificially low PP? For example, I upgrade my motor until I hit a spec/target PP value, and then simply apply the tires last so that it doesn't calculate into the total?

I know I'm being skeptical, but I'm really struggling with what the PP gives us as gamers. Thus far, it doesn't appear to be a very good performance reference.

Downforce definitely affects PP.

Regarding drive layout, that's far too complicated an area to assign performance points to I think. The benefits/drawbacks of a layout would be based on a particular track configuration and how a particular vehicle is tuned. There's probably no inherent advantage to a MR vehicle over a FF vehicle for a course like Indy. On a tighter course the FF vehicle will exhibit more understeer. AWD can also cause understeer. If both a FF and AWD are doubled in power, the FF will exhibit more understeer and, if tuned correctly, the AWD may exhibit less, etc. I think it just gets too conditional to quantify layouts with the PP system (I could be wrong of course).

Performance points are basically a rule of thumb because weight, power and other factors are all generally exchangeable on some level. Lighter weight and lower power vehicles can keep pace with a heavier more powerful vehicle on a tight course. A car with more weight and more downforce may handle, at speed, similarly to an identical car with less weight. Not exact of course, but it allows you to compare non-similar cars and still have a close race (depending on course).

 

[RWB1213]

Downforce definitely affects PP.

Regarding drive layout, that's far too complicated an area to assign performance points to I think. The benefits/drawbacks of a layout would be based on a particular track configuration and how a particular vehicle is tuned. There's probably no inherent advantage to a MR vehicle over a FF vehicle for a course like Indy. On a tighter course the FF vehicle will exhibit more understeer. AWD can also cause understeer. If both a FF and AWD are doubled in power, the FF will exhibit more understeer and, if tuned correctly, the AWD may exhibit less, etc. I think it just gets too conditional to quantify layouts with the PP system (I could be wrong of course).

Performance points are basically a rule of thumb because weight, power and other factors are all generally exchangeable on some level. Lighter weight and lower power vehicles can keep pace with a heavier more powerful vehicle on a tight course. A car with more weight and more downforce may handle, at speed, similarly to an identical car with less weight. Not exact of course, but it allows you to compare non-similar cars and still have a close race (depending on course).

Why did PD include downforce settings in the calculation if the true performance measure would be track specific to the setting? Not well thought out.

I disagree with the idea that driveline layout can't be measured or included in PP calculation. A MR layout is preferable in the vast majority of racing applications because it delivers two physical advantages- a weight balance that is inherently closer to 50/50, and less dynamic weight transfer (majority of the vehicle mass located near the center of mass.) Differences in tracks have little to do with the physical/mechanical advantages of a MR layout. Whether or not PP takes this into account would be easy enough to check, just compare two cars (different drive layouts) that are very close in HP and weight, put them on the same tires and downforce settings. The MR should have an advantage IMO. Even simpler would be to add ballast to a front heavy car and note if PP changes as you move the weight back.

 

[charliec]

Why did PD include downforce settings in the calculation if the true performance measure would be track specific to the setting? Not well thought out.

I disagree with the idea that driveline layout can't be measured or included in PP calculation. A MR layout is preferable in the vast majority of racing applications because it delivers two physical advantages- a weight balance that is inherently closer to 50/50, and less dynamic weight transfer (majority of the vehicle mass located near the center of mass.) Differences in tracks have little to do with the physical/mechanical advantages of a MR layout. Whether or not PP takes this into account would be easy enough to check, just compare two cars (different drive layouts) that are very close in HP and weight, put them on the same tires and downforce settings. The MR should have an advantage IMO. Even simpler would be to add ballast to a front heavy car and note if PP changes as you move the weight back.

I was using an extreme example of Indy which requires very little downforce because of the layout. Downforce is generally beneficial and only becomes a problem when the cars are speed limited by drag.

Using your example, I have an S2000 IRL that has a near 50/50 weight balance but it also is a FR layout (technically FMR because engine sits behind front axle but is listed as FR in game). Ideally, based on your above statement, they should really have the F/R weight distribution for all cars and assign PP based on how near that was to "ideal".

And yes, having the weight concentrated near center is typically considered ideal, but the issue is that how strong a role that plays in a race depends on the track and the tuning of the vehicle. That's why I think it'd be hard to accurately assign performance points just on layout.

If you had a MR vehicle and you received +20PP for that and I had a FF vehicle and I received no PP penalty, does your weight distribution advantage make up for the fact that I can run with less weight and more power on a course like Indy? If the speed of the vehicle is not limited by traction (meaning, I can go into a corner just as fast as you without sliding), where is the advantage? That MR layout would help sometimes and not help sometimes. I think it'd be heavy handed to penalize it everytime.

 

[blaktek]

I know that the PP system takes into account parts (or parts' parts) that won't change the power output.

I bought the Lvl 3 engine tuning to a car, and tried to get it back to stock power with the restrictor. It appears the engine tuning parts apply a PP penalty regardless of the power gain. If I set the power back to stock, PP would be higher than stock. If I set the PP back to stock, the power would be lower than stock.

In short, in a PP restricted race, the cars "better" equipped will have less power than stock cars.

 

[RWB1213]

I was using an extreme example of Indy which requires very little downforce because of the layout. Downforce is generally beneficial and only becomes a problem when the cars are speed limited by drag.

Using your example, I have an S2000 IRL that has a near 50/50 weight balance but it also is a FR layout (technically FMR because engine sits behind front axle but is listed as FR in game). Ideally, based on your above statement, they should really have the F/R weight distribution for all cars and assign PP based on how near that was to "ideal".

And yes, having the weight concentrated near center is typically considered ideal, but the issue is that how strong a role that plays in a race depends on the track and the tuning of the vehicle. That's why I think it'd be hard to accurately assign performance points just on layout.

If you had a MR vehicle and you received +20PP for that and I had a FF vehicle and I received no PP penalty, does your weight distribution advantage make up for the fact that I can run with less weight and more power on a course like Indy? If the speed of the vehicle is not limited by traction (meaning, I can go into a corner just as fast as you without sliding), where is the advantage? That MR layout would help sometimes and not help sometimes. I think it'd be heavy handed to penalize it everytime.

Agreed, a flat point advantage across the PP range would be a mistake. Rather a percentage of possible points would be better, so a small multiplier against the PP like 1.025. That would scale the layout advantage to the overall PP scale.

Your example of Indy is a given and I agree, so consider the opposite . . . Tsukuba. If you don't include a drive layout modifier in PP, won't the MR layout have a PP advantage everytime at that track? My point is, you can't flat disregard it. I know in other titles (FM3 for example) the vehicle specs are run through an engine which laps the car on a "balanced" track - straights, sweepers, hairpins, chicanes. Trust me, the FM3 model isn't perfect (it's actually broken considering how it measures AWD cars) but otherwise drive layout measures feels balanced.

It would only be heavy handed if the PP bump for MR was too large. If given my example, you agree that the MR would have an inherent PP advantage (if not calculated) at Tsukuba then isn't PP calculation penalizing FF/FR/RR? Of course, I'm still standing on the declaration that MR has a absolute mechanical advantage- which I believe is true.

 

[Destinkeys]

This is insane! Downforce should have NO effect on PP, nor tires. They are all things you can quickly change, and you should be able to specify tires for each race. Downforce should be entirely the choice of the driver. On some tracks, higher downforce is an ADVANTAGE, on others it's a disadvantage. How can it permanently affect PP?

If PP did what it was supposed to, running equally PP'd different cars OUGHT to give you pretty similar lap times. If it doesn't, how is it any better than a simple hp/weight filter? Tired of Elise's? Well, you are going to get tired of whatever is at the top of the PP bracket, too!

This is simply PD adding in yet ANOTHER untested beta feature months earlier than it should have. Whatever happened to Q&A? Whatever happened to playtesting? I'm not getting paid enough to beta test PD's half-assed ideas...

 

[Exorcet]

Why did PD include downforce settings in the calculation if the true performance measure would be track specific to the setting? Not well thought out.

Because they didn't bother to accurately model downforce. In GT, more is better because the drag penalty is virtually non existent.

 

[FT-1]

I'll say PP restriction are good for reasonably close online races. The only problem I have with it is the PP on the Go-Kart. I don't remember the exact rating, but it is 500+.

 

[Destinkeys]

Higher downforce generally gets you higher tire wear, though, doesn't it? It's not like, max downforce on EVERY car, on every track is always fastest at least if pitstops come into it...

 

[RWB1213]

I know that the PP system takes into account parts (or parts' parts) that won't change the power output.

I bought the Lvl 3 engine tuning to a car, and tried to get it back to stock power with the restrictor. It appears the engine tuning parts apply a PP penalty regardless of the power gain. If I set the power back to stock, PP would be higher than stock. If I set the PP back to stock, the power would be lower than stock.

In short, in a PP restricted race, the cars "better" equipped will have less power than stock cars.

Interesting. This supports what is being posted in other threads re: use of the power limiter function. Folks are claiming that the power limiting function seems to "gut" the engine. In engine terms, reduces torque excessively. Many folks contend it is better to remove parts (when you can) vs. using the power limiter function. Have you run the same comparison looking at torque? My bet is that your "power limited" version when equal to stock HP actually has less torque than stock.

 

[esoxhntr]

If PP did what it was supposed to, running equally PP'd different cars OUGHT to give you pretty similar lap times.

I think it does. If I can enter a 1700kg/700hp f150 lightning and race it against a 700kg/200hp elise resulting with us being 0-10 secs apart after a 5 lap race, I'd say it's a much better model than hp/weight restrictions.

you are going to get tired of whatever is at the top of the PP bracket, too!

No denying it's possible, even likely that'll happen. For now, from what I've seen, it's generally working.

 

[charliec]

Agreed, a flat point advantage across the PP range would be a mistake. Rather a percentage of possible points would be better, so a small multiplier against the PP like 1.025. That would scale the layout advantage to the overall PP scale.

Your example of Indy is a given and I agree, so consider the opposite . . . Tsukuba. If you don't include a drive layout modifier in PP, won't the MR layout have a PP advantage everytime at that track? My point is, you can't flat disregard it. I know in other titles (FM3 for example) the vehicle specs are run through an engine which laps the car on a "balanced" track - straights, sweepers, hairpins, chicanes. Trust me, the FM3 model isn't perfect (it's actually broken considering how it measures AWD cars) but otherwise drive layout measures feels balanced.

It would only be heavy handed if the PP bump for MR was too large. If given my example, you agree that the MR would have an inherent PP advantage (if not calculated) at Tsukuba then isn't PP calculation penalizing FF/FR/RR? Of course, I'm still standing on the declaration that MR has a absolute mechanical advantage- which I believe is true.

Yep, if it could take into account track layout, I would definitely agree.

This is insane! Downforce should have NO effect on PP, nor tires. They are all things you can quickly change, and you should be able to specify tires for each race. Downforce should be entirely the choice of the driver. On some tracks, higher downforce is an ADVANTAGE, on others it's a disadvantage. How can it permanently affect PP?

If PP did what it was supposed to, running equally PP'd different cars OUGHT to give you pretty similar lap times. If it doesn't, how is it any better than a simple hp/weight filter? Tired of Elise's? Well, you are going to get tired of whatever is at the top of the PP bracket, too!

This is simply PD adding in yet ANOTHER untested beta feature months earlier than it should have. Whatever happened to Q&A? Whatever happened to playtesting? I'm not getting paid enough to beta test PD's half-assed ideas...

Your PP changes with settings. It's not permanent. You can go into one race with slightly lower power and higher downforce if it's more technical course. If the next course in a series in higher speed, reduce downforce and increase power. Downforce and tires both affect performance (sometimes drastically) so it would makes sense that they be included in the PP measure.

 

[RWB1213]

This is insane! Downforce should have NO effect on PP, nor tires. They are all things you can quickly change, and you should be able to specify tires for each race. Downforce should be entirely the choice of the driver. On some tracks, higher downforce is an ADVANTAGE, on others it's a disadvantage. How can it permanently affect PP?

If PP did what it was supposed to, running equally PP'd different cars OUGHT to give you pretty similar lap times. If it doesn't, how is it any better than a simple hp/weight filter? Tired of Elise's? Well, you are going to get tired of whatever is at the top of the PP bracket, too!

This is simply PD adding in yet ANOTHER untested beta feature months earlier than it should have. Whatever happened to Q&A? Whatever happened to playtesting? I'm not getting paid enough to beta test PD's half-assed ideas...

Easy. We are having a discussion about PP modelling, and I agree with you, downforce settings should not be included. I think we are all just trying to get comfortable with PP. I know we can all agree that if PP is not modelled right, PP limited rooms will have new favorites. I would contend that if drive layout isn't accounted for, PP races will be over-run by MR layouts. The more discussion we have about how PP behaves, the better we will learn if/how to use it to set up a balanced room. If PD made an error in their PP calculation code, the good news is that it would be very simple to patch (remember, we didn't have it at all to begin with.)

 

[charliec]

Interesting. This supports what is being posted in other threads re: use of the power limiter function. Folks are claiming that the power limiting function seems to "gut" the engine. In engine terms, reduces torque excessively. Many folks contend it is better to remove parts (when you can) vs. using the power limiter function. Have you run the same comparison looking at torque? My bet is that your "power limited" version when equal to stock HP actually has less torque than stock.

I'll have to play with the power limiter to see how it works, I've seen people state it the other way (power limited version has more torque). Anyways, torque and hp are the same thing mathematically, so if one is decreasing more than the other, something else would have to be changing (i.e. - the powerband) and not just a linear decrease in power.

 

[blaktek]

Interesting. This supports what is being posted in other threads re: use of the power limiter function. Folks are claiming that the power limiting function seems to "gut" the engine. In engine terms, reduces torque excessively. Many folks contend it is better to remove parts (when you can) vs. using the power limiter function. Have you run the same comparison looking at torque? My bet is that your "power limited" version when equal to stock HP actually has less torque than stock.

The torque line is not affected by the restrictor (in the graph). Power output is. When using the restrictor, the feeling of the power is different. What some can identify as an engine gutting is only the power peaking and flatlining. The engine stops giving more power and gives the same power until red line (almost).

I took 2 cheap cars, tuned one for power, then dialed it back to stock value. the power graph showed a flat line starting 4000 RPM. I set a time in practice with the tuned car, saved the ghost, and tried to beat it with the stock car. It can't be done (I can't anyway).

The restricted car seems to fly off the curves and shows indecent acceleration. If I had set the tuned car to stock PP instead of power, the bone stock car would've had a chance to equal it's time. The restrictor is truncating the power line, so more power is available earlier, and stays longer (compared to stock natural line).

If online, get yourself a too powerful car, and restrict it. Power will be delivered in electric car fashion, but you can live with that.

 

[charliec]

The torque line is not affected by the restrictor (in the graph). Power output is. When using the restrictor, the feeling of the power is different. What some can identify as an engine gutting is only the power peaking and flatlining. The engine stops giving more power and gives the same power until red line (almost).

I took 2 cheap cars, tuned one for power, then dialed it back to stock value. the power graph showed a flat line starting 4000 RPM. I set a time in practice with the tuned car, saved the ghost, and tried to beat it with the stock car. It can't be done (I can't anyway).

The restricted car seems to fly off the curves and shows indecent acceleration. If I had set the tuned car to stock PP instead of power, the bone stock car would've had a chance to equal it's time. The restrictor is truncating the power line, so more power is available earlier, and stays longer (compared to stock natural line).

If online, get yourself a too powerful car, and restrict it. Power will be delivered in electric car fashion, but you can live with that.

Interesting. Sounds like they're no longer following the (RPM*T)/5252 measurement for horsepower?

 

[Destinkeys]

We are unpaid beta testers. Face it.

 

[esoxhntr]

Since PP was put in, I've been racing heavy a$$ trucks with lots of hp/torque online. Usually I'm the only one going up against your typical skylines, rx7s, elise's etc. What I've noticed is that I've done well on tracks like Laguna, Tsukuba, Eiger Short Track.. fairly well on Nurburgring (Long one), Rome and poorly on tracks like Suzuka.

I think that illustrates the PP system playing to the strengths of the trucks on the tracks that have low speed followed by hard accell (torque) vs its weakness on tracks that require good handling on high speed sweepers.... and I kinda like it.

 

[RWB1213]

The torque line is not affected by the restrictor (in the graph). Power output is. When using the restrictor, the feeling of the power is different. What some can identify as an engine gutting is only the power peaking and flatlining. The engine stops giving more power and gives the same power until red line (almost).

I took 2 cheap cars, tuned one for power, then dialed it back to stock value. the power graph showed a flat line starting 4000 RPM. I set a time in practice with the tuned car, saved the ghost, and tried to beat it with the stock car. It can't be done (I can't anyway).

The restricted car seems to fly off the curves and shows indecent acceleration. If I had set the tuned car to stock PP instead of power, the bone stock car would've had a chance to equal it's time. The restrictor is truncating the power line, so more power is available earlier, and stays longer (compared to stock natural line).

If online, get yourself a too powerful car, and restrict it. Power will be delivered in electric car fashion, but you can live with that.

If this is true, then wouldn't a power restricted motor be preferential in PP terms to a stock motor on a track requiring acceleration more than top speed?

 

[blaktek]

Interesting. Sounds like they're no longer following the (RPM*T)/5252 measurement for horsepower?

I'm not a mechanic, so I can't say. But I'm a gamer. And as such I see an advantage in having a restrictor on. It may be physically wrong or even heretic, but it works for me, ingame.

 

[RWB1213]

We are unpaid beta testers. Face it.

Don't you mean "paying beta testers" - think about it.

 

[blaktek]

Another fun fact is the ballast thingy. Some cars need some weight in the trunk (see the tuning section). Adding weight in the right place make your car better, easier to handle, more balanced and predictable (and lose a few PP in the process).

And because you've been a good boy, you can add "free" power to meet a PP restriction.

 

[RWB1213]

Another fun fact is the ballast thingy. Some cars need some weight in the trunk (see the tuning section). Adding weight in the right place make your car better, easier to handle, more balanced and predictable (and lose a few PP in the process).

And because you've been a good boy, you can add "free" power to meet a PP restriction.

It's not free, it comes with the associated weight penalty. The car may be easier to drive, but easier to drive does not neccesarily mean fast through corners, and certainly not better acceleration in a straight line. Sure the added PP available for horsepower is nice, but the added hp should not be able to make up for these other differences if the PP calculation is accurate (for most tracks anyway.)

Ballast is frequently used by racing organizations to penalize cars which have a power-to-weight ratio advantage over other cars in the field.