How good is the new PP scale at measuring performance?

[HaylRayzor]

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

Ballast is also a tuning tool. Cars will be built lighter than spec so that weight can be added where they want it to balance the handling.

 

[charliec]

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.

No, that's probably right. I have a feeling it allows you to have a modded car that moves your power curve forward and then cuts power at wherever you put the limiter. Peak power may be the same as stock but you are making power faster and in more places (RPMs).

 

[RWB1213]

Ballast is also a tuning tool. Cars will be built lighter than spec so that weight can be added where they want it to balance the handling.

This is a great point. Is everyone listening? Hint, if your building a car to a spec weight, you will likely want to perform all three weight reductions and then add weight via ballast and use the location tool to balance the car.

With that said, would there ever be an advantage to not performing all three weight reductions first? I can't think of a reason. Is there a limit on how much ballast we can add? Or is it just limited at a really large number, like 2000lbs?

On the Ruf's, does the location move to the front? It should. If not, then don't do the steps above on a Ruf.

 

[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.

Just wanted to mention, torque behaves correctly with the restrictor plate. I cut a vehicle power output in half, which showed a plateau when that power point was reach. Torque tapered off once that power point was reached as would be expected (torque is multiplied by RPM, so in order to maintain a constant HP value with increasing RPM, torque must decrease over the range).

So, this seems like it's working correctly. The only advantage is that tuning the vehicle prior to running a restrictor moves your power curve forward and you hit your peak power sooner and have a greater RPM range that keeps you at the peak power. 👍

 

[HaylRayzor]

Is there a limit on how much ballast we can add? Or is it just limited at a really large number, like 2000lbs?

You can only add 200kg.

 

[brainfade]

I have to say the PP system is very flawed, due to the fact that ultimately it is speculative and not actually based on laptimes. This is the same problem that Belcar, Britcar and Dutch Supercar Challenge face in real life because they base their categories on power to weight, as a result they then have to introduce things like ballast or changing brake materials (the infamous Audi TT-R debacle from the DSC).

The only way you can properly categorise cars into fair playing fields is by going down the route that the FIA took with the World GT1 where they tested all the cars and levelled them via clever use of ballast and restrictors. The only real way you can judge and categorise the performance of cars is through laptimes. GT5 has the added complication of tyre choice to factor in as well, something that has been factored in poorly in the PP system.

So heres what I propose - this may potentially be unworkable due to the sheer amount of cars but it's worth a shot, you take three tracks of similar length which test the following individually so:

track 1 = straightline speed
track 2 = high speed cornering
track 3 = low speed cornering

Now it would be purely insane to test each car via actually driving them in game, so what you can easily do alternatively is have computers calculate the laptimes of each car on each tyre (this can be done quite easily so don't bother moaning about it) what you then do is add the times together in to an aggregated time for each car under each tyre, so for example (this isn't correct, it's just intended to be an example):

Nissan GTR v spec 09 / Comfort soft: 8:00:00
Nissan GTR v spec 09 / Sports soft: 7:49:00
Nissan GTR v sped 09 / Racing soft: 7:35:00

What you then do is you collate all the times from every Car / Tyre combination and split them down into categories/indices(plural for index) judged by that aggregated time. In theory, not only will this create more competitive races, but you will also get the classic 'David and Goliath' effect where cars which are excellent in a straight line and others which are excellent in the turns will be highly competitive against each other.

 

[Limelight788]

For what I've seen, it's a great system and far superior to the HP system. I was always annoyed that the HP system always disregarded how good the car actually was. Now we have a system that actually takes into account how good it is at racing and a system that I hope becomes a norm for the game; although there should be no extensions into the offline portion.

 

[mmmgilly]

From what I have seen, the cars get an individual base PP, which is lowered or heightened by adding modifications, but not specifically what the modifications have given your car. If a car cannot have many modifications added to it, it will be likely to have a comparable pp to a similar car that had been heavilly modified with a lower base PP. Not a great example, but take the GT by Citroen race car and the Viper SRT10. the viper has more hp with similar weight, but the GT has slightly higher PP. Despite this the viper has the advantage in a race because it can have drivetrain modifications and different balance with its higher power. That is one example that I have seen but Im sure there is more somewhere.

 

[Duck]

Before PP (re)introduction I developed an empiric formula to have an extimation of the car performance. Like "true" PP, it works quite good, but there are car parameters too hard to value: car balancing, gearing, how tires are modeled in GT5..... not forgetting driving style, and how you warm tires
So don't be surprised to find cars with 20-40PP less then the others, but faster.
The best we can do to value car performance is definitively a well done time attack, on a large selection of circuits 👍

 

[brainfade]

...as I said guy, the only way you can fairly categorise cars is by looking at actual laptimes.

 

[CoolColJ]

Why are people using Soft racing tyres to compare PP anyway?

Soft racing tyres are far too grippy and kill the disadvantage of 2 wheel drive cars vs 4WD cars

Softs should be banned from all racing until their wear rating is doubled!

 

[alonsof1fan91]

In GT5P the PP system was pretty bad because there was no real balancing between tuned cars/race cars and road cars.

But I can only say positive things about the new PP system. It brings the field much closer together.

Yesterday I raced (ok, it was more of a time trial) with a few guys on a custom track with 680PP limits. One was using a 458 italia, the other guy the takata dome NSX and there was also a R35 GT-R Vspec.
My car was a Mark IV race car.

We were all able to produce similar lap times. It was very funny because there was always a gap of 3 seconds between one car and the other car on the track.
So when I hit the start finish line with a 1:15.2, the next car made a 1:15.1, the next a 1:14.8 etc. The times went down till 1:12.6.

So i guess the PP system works pretty good.

 

[berzerkfvry]

I've noticed weird comparisons with the PP system between near identical cars. Having a '96 and '98 Prelude Type S ingame, both are 1310kg in weight and 221hp, should give near identical PP. However the '98 scored less compared to the '96 model despite having the same power to weight ratio, tyres, torque and dimensions. Haven't driven neither around a track so body rigidity shouldn't matter.

 

[Duck]

I've noticed weird comparisons with the PP system between near identical cars. Having a '96 and '98 Prelude Type S ingame, both are 1310kg in weight and 221hp, should give near identical PP. However the '98 scored less compared to the '96 model despite having the same power to weight ratio, tyres, torque and dimensions. Haven't driven neither around a track so body rigidity shouldn't matter.

Not only weight and engine is the same, also the body. Both share the BB6 platform.
What about the mileage? Body refreshment?
If not very different, you should investigate in suspension parameters (but you have to buy a custom one to do so).

On the last side... I don't know. Maybe they modeled something different (downforce?) even if the car is the same.

 

[MiseryStreak]

The power limiter is actually a torque limiter, engine power is engine torque multiplied by engine speed (power in bhp is torque in ft lbf divided by 5252, multiplied by engine speed in rpm). This is why it appears to 'gut' an engine, the torque will plateau (much as it does IRL with cars like Brabus Mercedes or new Focus RS in first gear) and stay capped at that torque figure throughout the whole rev range. This is the only way of limiting engine max power without restricting the rev limit, as the rev limit is unaffected, the torque must be limited.

I'm not sure this is a disadvantage over removing engine mods, as the engine will reach maximum torque very quickly and hold it, an unrestricted engine with the same power as a capped engine will not make the same torque as quickly or hold on to it for as long.

I entered the FF seasonal event with a fully penaltied up Integra DC-5 RM. I added 200kg ballast so it weighed about the same as the competition and took 50% off the power, reducing it to 158bhp, at least 40bhp down on the competition, with Sport soft tyres I creamed everything in one and a half laps. It felt a lot faster than a DC2 with 200bhp and less weight that I had in real life!

 

[MiseryStreak]

Why are people using Soft racing tyres to compare PP anyway?

Soft racing tyres are far too grippy and kill the disadvantage of 2 wheel drive cars vs 4WD cars

Softs should be banned from all racing until their wear rating is doubled!

I don't agree, how many race cars when given the choice, opt for 4WD? It is not actually an advantage unless traction is very low, i.e. in a dirt rally. Look at the Citroen Xara Rally car, it was a FWD car and won the WRC beating all the AWD competition, then they gave it a massive weight penalty the following year to even things up!

After heavy criticism the Focus RS with it's FWD drivetrain beat the similarly powered 4WD competition in performance tests and in terms of it's driving feel.

AWD adds more drivetrain losses, more weight, and unless set up to be effectively a RWD car, with about 20% going to the front wheels will induce understeer. Look at all the best 4WD sports cars (Audi R8, Gallardo, 911 Turbo) they are set up with very little drive going to the front wheels.

 

[niky]

The Power Limiter actually seems to limit HP, not torque. Give a car a 100 hp penalty, and it'll make the hp cap over a wide spread of rpms, with torque dropping as you get closer to redline.

Racing Softs don't properly reflect the disadvantages of 2WD versus AWD as expressed by PPs, but it seems that on Sports Hards , the advantages of AWD are higher than PP can make up for... at least on tight tracks.

 

[charliec]

The power limiter is actually a torque limiter, engine power is engine torque multiplied by engine speed (power in bhp is torque in ft lbf divided by 5252, multiplied by engine speed in rpm). This is why it appears to 'gut' an engine, the torque will plateau (much as it does IRL with cars like Brabus Mercedes or new Focus RS in first gear) and stay capped at that torque figure throughout the whole rev range. This is the only way of limiting engine max power without restricting the rev limit, as the rev limit is unaffected, the torque must be limited.

I think this is backwards . HP will plateau, not torque. HP is a function of RPM and torque so for HP to remain constant, torque has to decrease with increasing RPMs. If torque remained constant and RPMs increased, HP would increase with RPM.

 

[Rich S]

The restricted Lemans cars with high PPs all do really crappy at lower speed tracks against Super GT cars with low PPs. Tried to cheat with a Toyota GT-One car at Tskuba and got it handed to me, lol. I think the aerodynamic grip must get exponentially lower with less speed, and thats why. It was weird because I had pole by atleast 5 seconds, but during the race I couldnt do anything once somebody bumped me out of the way.

 

[CoolColJ]

I don't agree, how many race cars when given the choice, opt for 4WD? It is not actually an advantage unless traction is very low, i.e. in a dirt rally. Look at the Citroen Xara Rally car, it was a FWD car and won the WRC beating all the AWD competition, then they gave it a massive weight penalty the following year to even things up!

After heavy criticism the Focus RS with it's FWD drivetrain beat the similarly powered 4WD competition in performance tests and in terms of it's driving feel.

AWD adds more drivetrain losses, more weight, and unless set up to be effectively a RWD car, with about 20% going to the front wheels will induce understeer. Look at all the best 4WD sports cars (Audi R8, Gallardo, 911 Turbo) they are set up with very little drive going to the front wheels.

I guess that's why Audi dominated in rallying before everyone went to AWD and the same in Super Tourers, they penalised the AWD Audi cars with extra weight because nobody could touch em.
And in old school GT1 races back in the day, in the rules AWD cars get extra penalties, based on what I read when the Quaife car was racing.
http://www.autotech.com/quaife/racing/r4gts.htm

GT5 doesn't model torque steer, which is a major problem in powerful FWD cars like the Focus RS, in the wet forget about it. Even a low torque 1.6 litre NA FWD car is a handful in real life

In the real world, I drive an AWD car, the difference in grip, handling, sure footedness, confidence and tyre wear is night and day to an FWD and FR car

This is my point, AWD does have some disadvantages as well, which is balanced by it's advanatges, but the soft racing tyres are so grippy, you really don't need AWD in GT5! So AWD cars are penalised vs MR cars especially. In the wet things chang somewhat

 

[charliec]

And they could always implement a JGTC type system that awards whoever wins extra weight, so if you continue winning, your car continues to get heavier

 

[brainfade]

... so i take it im the only person who sees the SENSE that laptimes are a better indication of performance rather than running rudimentry figures and taking a guess

 

[charliec]

... so i take it im the only person who sees the SENSE that laptimes are a better indication of performance rather than running rudimentry figures and taking a guess

That's what my post above refers to...regardless of tune or modifications, you're penalized with weight based on your performance. So even if you're car is equal, you can still be penalized for being a better driver. I think this would be the most aggressive method of normalizing cars (and would only be effective on championship races).

But, using rudimentry figures and adhering to basic guidelines is the best alternative I think. Other than having a strict race series that requires everyone to have the same minimum weight, displacement, power output, etcc, there's really no way to compare hundreds of potentially disparate vehicles. It's not exact but there's not necessarily a better method.

 

[Khoin]

My 1st X2010, the one I use to grind b-spec and has 25000+ miles driven, no engine or chassis restore and no oil-change in probably 20000 miles, somehow has a higher PP than my brand-new X1, which has about 150bhp more >.>

Also, just sorting my cars on PP and going through the list gives me the impression that it's not the most trustworthy indication. As a general ballpark figure, it's probably alright though.

End of the day, it's a calculation based of a number of parameters. Most likely at least weight, power, drivetrain upgrades, downforce and grip.

This obviously doesn't always work, a car can seem very good based on these calculations, but be undrivable for whatever reason. Also, different types of tracks ask for different types of cars.

To get a better "rating", I guess PD could make the game "simulate" races using a standard ai-driver for a car, do this on a number of different tracks, give the laptime a score and take the average of these scores (or, specify score per type of track, so you'll know how good a car is a certain type of track).

This would take a fair amount of computing power though... I guess they could do a sort of "test run" option, where you give your car to a standard "Bob" (not one of your own, but one that's the same for all players) and put him on a track. The laptime could then be a true indication of performance for that track.

 

[cleanLX]

... so i take it im the only person who sees the SENSE that laptimes are a better indication of performance rather than running rudimentry figures and taking a guess

Yes and no.
Lap times will be dependant upon the "drivers" comfort with a particular vehicle.
There was a thread where a guy tested and rated all the race cars in the game. Very interesting results... given that "his" fastest cars are not the cars "I" go fast in.
A friend of mine and I race together (face to face, sharing driving duties) often. There are cars he simply kills me with, while there are others I have a better handle on.

So, yes, lap times will be a good indication of how PP works for you... not for someone with a differnt driving style/comfort level.

I believe the PP needs to be based on mechanical data as it currently is... and us players can figure out which car we are faster/more comfortable in.

 

[RWB1213]

... so i take it im the only person who sees the SENSE that laptimes are a better indication of performance rather than running rudimentry figures and taking a guess

Nope, CharlieC and I already agreed on this point early in the thread. In order to accurately model any kind of performance index, you have to take into account (at least in some measure) what the vehicle is being asked to do. That is where track layout comes into play, and we agree with you.

I can think of two ways to generate PI based on track calculations. First, PD could use the single sample track approach (like FM3) whereby the cars specs are run through an engine (calculation) which measures vehicle performance against a "balanced" model track. This track would require an equal measure of all track components - straights, turns of various type. The calculation would be basically an average. The second way would be to calculate based on each track, this would be more accurate but difficult to present in a single value in the garage. Any other ideas?

 

[RWB1213]

Yes and no.
Lap times will be dependant upon the "drivers" comfort with a particular vehicle.
There was a thread where a guy tested and rated all the race cars in the game. Very interesting results... given that "his" fastest cars are not the cars "I" go fast in.
A friend of mine and I race together (face to face, sharing driving duties) often. There are cars he simply kills me with, while there are others I have a better handle on.

So, yes, lap times will be a good indication of how PP works for you... not for someone with a differnt driving style/comfort level.

I believe the PP needs to be based on mechanical data as it currently is... and us players can figure out which car we are faster/more comfortable in.

Very valid point, PP can't take into account how easy or hard a car is to drive for different drivers. There is a matter of taste that comes into play, and considering the old saying- Smooth is Fast- PP is bound to come up short in this area.

 

[RWB1213]

And they could always implement a JGTC type system that awards whoever wins extra weight, so if you continue winning, your car continues to get heavier

And this is the method I prefer in my league. Either added ballast, hp reduction, or a PP reduction. I'll be testing all of the above over the next month.