Is camber fixed? Discuss it here.

[Highlandor]

"I'm not the only one who deliberately drags threads off topic on this forum" isn't exactly the most brilliant defense tactic, I have to say.



Yes, the context of bringing up some apparent slight Stotty caused against you regarding suspension tuning being backwards, presumably during your tour of duty in the "ego wars" was totally, um... something related to this thread, even though you avoided the question when asked why you brought it up.
I don't really give a damn what you think you have to gain by acting like the guy who is too cool for the room (but you'll hang out anyway just to say how much better you are for doing so). I will, however, say that some of us actually are interested in the question raised by the OP but don't understand the raw and early stage results being thrown around in the thread actually used for testing; but considerably less so with you or Stotty or Odefinn or Motor City Miami competing in the America's Next Top Passive Aggressive Ass 2014 page after page after page. And Stotty and Odefinn are at least talking about the topic.

At least I've contributed info relating to tuning, unlike your posts so far..

There's at least 2 people on this thread that I've had 'run ins' with before that I've 'liked' or agreed with, unlike others who aren't man enough to do the same. Those who are man enough to let bygones be bygones and talk, get talked too. Those who can't let bygones be bygones and just carry on showing contempt get contempt back.

So why don''t you either:

a) get your facts straight
b) start contributing something about tuning
c) go swing your **** elsewhere

 

[Tornado]

At least I've contributed info relating to tuning, unlike your posts so far..

Was that the one with a dozen laughing smilies? Or your first post that mostly talks about tire wear and why laptimes can't be used as testing criteria? I see a bunch of posts where you've been asked to explain what you were saying about tuning and you ignored it and/or attacked the person asking the question, so perhaps you can point it out to me.

a) get your facts straight

By all means straighten them. Imari already asked and was fobbed off, but I'd also like to actually see some of the knowledge you claim to lord over us. I made threads hoping to gain some info about GT5's physics modeling after the game was hacked open, but I ultimately had to settle with browsing through the hybrid forums and places off of GTP to learn how some of the inner workings of GT5 were. Every member who claimed to know GT6's inner programming and was trying to discuss it as it pertains to physics has been banned; and I'm thinking it was all the same guy. I'm very interested in GT6's accuracy of physics modeling, but since I always tuned by feel I don't have a firm grasp on what things are supposed to do in theory and what they do do when the theory is applied because I never formally learned the theory in terms of tuning. Can you bring yourself to actually explain it when others have been attempting to do so?



What are the tuning formulas that worked from GT5 1.00 to GT6 1.15? I assume that involve exploits in the tuning engine of some kind as has always been the case in the series (oh, the discussions about GT4 tuning flaws I remember between Scaff and other members. That was the last game I really tried a serious hand at tuning instead of just switching to more suitable cars, mostly to try to tune out the rampant understeer and brake problems that plagued that game), and if they carried over unchanged from GT5 at launch despite the new suspension simulation and tire physics GT6 brought, they must be pretty inherent to the basic coding of the engine.
You want to prove that this thread isn't just another front in the personal squabbles between these members you've had "run ins" with and you actually care, make a post that isn't centered on how wrong they are without actually elaborating for us people who don't know what you're talking about because we don't have the baggage you're bringing into the argument. Until then you're really kinda just pissing in the wind.

 

[Highlandor]

Was that the one with a dozen laughing smilies? Or your first post that mostly talks about tire wear and why laptimes can't be used as testing criteria? I see a bunch of posts where you've been asked to explain what you were saying about tuning and you ignored it and/or attacked the person asking the question, so perhaps you can point it out to me.


By all means straighten them. Imari already asked and was fobbed off, but I'd also like to actually see some of the knowledge you claim to lord over us. I made threads hoping to gain some info about GT5's physics modeling after the game was hacked open, but I ultimately had to settle with browsing through the hybrid forums and places off of GTP to learn how some of the inner workings of GT5 were. Every member who claimed to know GT6's inner programming and was trying to discuss it as it pertains to physics has been banned; and I'm thinking it was all the same guy. I'm very interested in GT6's accuracy of physics modeling, but since I always tuned by feel I don't have a firm grasp on what things are supposed to do in theory and what they do do when the theory is applied because I never formally learned the theory in terms of tuning. Can you bring yourself to actually explain it when others have been attempting to do so?



What are the tuning formulas that worked from GT5 1.00 to GT6 1.15? I assume that involve exploits in the tuning engine of some kind as has always been the case in the series (oh, the discussions about GT4 tuning flaws I remember between Scaff and other members. That was the last game I really tried a serious hand at tuning instead of just switching to more suitable cars, mostly to try to tune out the rampant understeer and brake problems that plagued that game), and if they carried over unchanged from GT5 at launch despite the new suspension simulation and tire physics GT6 brought, they must be pretty inherent to the basic coding of the engine.
You want to prove that this thread isn't just another front in the personal squabbles between these members you've had "run ins" with and you actually care, make a post that isn't centered on how wrong they are without actually elaborating for us people who don't know what you're talking about because we don't have the baggage you're bringing into the argument. Until then you're really kinda just pissing in the wind.

What's the worst that's going to happen, carry on getting grief, well that's nothing new is it? Even when I've shared info and 'secrets' it still hasn't stopped certain people from giving me grief, so what incentive is there to post this?

The most ironic thing is that it's been posted before, people didn't want to know, but after opening the tuning garage suddenly there was this interest. You honestly think I'm going to give up all the magic formula's in the 'hope' that this will make everything rosey and sweet, you must be living in a dreamworld..

No worries, I'll carry on 'pissing in the wind', you boys can keep chasing your tails or trawling through all the old tuning threads, best of luck with that 👍

Go ahead, flame the hell out of me, this happens anyway when I've tried to help, or post what you're requesting, so there's no change at all for me then, is there?

Unfortunately for you, the members of my site and all the other websites that have my calculator know I'm not 'pissing in the wind', they know it remains unchanged for nearly 4 years now. They respect that, not give me grief like so many on here, so I'll be 'pissing in the wind' with them, certainly not with people like you.

 

[Tornado]

Again... not really doing the best job disproving that this whole thread after your first post isn't just a pretext on your part to reignite personal rivalries with people who apparently slighted you.

certainly not with people like you.

So now you're throwing your past baggage on GTP around in discussions and applying it to people who don't even know what you're talking about as an excuse to not actually say anything. I have a newsflash for you: I'm don't care about the doctorate you have in tuning secrets. You made a website, you have a following, you're the cat's ass. Good for you. Legitimately. Congratulations. Beyond very minor gearing/downforce/ride height/weight balance adjustments, I don't tune cars in GT anymore, because there are so many cars in the game and the physics are decent enough that I can just switch to something else and it works fine enough; so I can't even imagine the trial and error it took to discover such a thing.



I'm interested in physics accuracy; the thing this thread is about. That means if there are some sort of demonstrable underlying physics flaw that you're aware of that you alluded to in relation to this topic about camber that has plagued the this game and the last despite all of the improvements to the engine, I'm interested in that. Not whatever specific tuning settings you used to exploit it, and not whatever beef you have with other members who you talked to in the past who didn't buy it.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Alright guys, as painful as it was for me to do this due to the fact that I am fresh out of the hospital and all stitched up , I just sat through 5 hours of testing to bring some numbers to the table. First, let me say that when PD announced some updates ago that they fixed the camber issue, I was one of the few people who believed that it was indeed fixed...to an extent. I still believe that. I did loads of testing back then to come to my conclusion, I did not just take PD's word that it was fixed. With this most recent update in regards to camber further being tweaked, I have not felt any difference compared to the update where they fixed it, everything feels and works the same as it did after that update, in my opinion. I would further like to say that I am not claiming my findings here to be fact, only how I see things from my point of view after all the testing I have done in the game in regards to this issue. After the "camber" update, if you will, I tested 3 cars of each drivetrain of various power levels. I cannot begin to tell you how thorough I was in my testing after that update. I feel that I left no stone unturned in coming to my conclusion. I say this because this time around, I have only had time to do this one in depth test with this one car so far, but that's enough for me to come to the same conclusion I came to back at the original "camber" update. Like I said earlier, I believe that camber is indeed fixed for the most part. I more less just did this test so I would have some numbers to bring to the table. Ok, about the test.

I wanted to take out as many variables as I could, so this is how I went about it. I had my daughter help me with this test. Her job was to punch in the camber numbers into the suspension setting without me knowing which ones I was driving in each session. This was done in order to take out the element of me knowing which settings I was driving and when, just trying to take out as much of the human "mind over matter" element that I could. She filled in the chart that I had made as we went. I used a low powered car at a short track to minimized as much of the drivers input as I could: minimal throttle/brake/steering input and the like. I also used automatic transmission to take out any shifting variables. With this, I was able to pretty much replicate each lap exactly in regards to inputs and driving line, I was very constant with my inputs in this test. Here are the rest of the parameters. Each session was 6 laps.

Car: Honda S500 '63
Tires: Stock (CM)
Parts added: Suspension (stock except for camber settings) Trans (Stock)
No oil change
Track: Tsukuba
Time: 15:30
Temp. 73 degrees F
Grip Reduction: Real

Test Results

• 0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
• 4.0/0.0 1'24.822
• 3.0/0.0 1'24.783
• 2.0/0.0 1'24.415
• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
• 0.0/4.0 1'24.633
• 0.0/3.0 1'24.364
• 0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber
• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229
• 1.0/1.0 1'24.313
• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233
• 3.0/3.0 1'24.516
• 4.0/4.0 1'24.997

So, now knowing where my possible sweet spot for front and rear camber was, I further tweaked the camber values and ended up with 0.6/2.2 with a time of 1'24.129. To further validate this and while I was still in the groove, I went and re-ran 0.0/0.0 camber again ending up with a time of 1'24.407. So, as you can see, my numbers here back up my beliefs, camber works and is not broken. Knowing these numbers, I can now apply them, with a few adjustments, into a stable, fast, and competitive tune.

In closing, I would just like to once again say that I am in no way claiming my findings to be fact, but only what I believe to be true through my own testing. Now, its been a long day, I'm off to rest now. Happy Holidays everyone.

 

[Highlandor]

So now you're throwing your past baggage on GTP around in discussions and applying it to people who don't even know what you're talking about as an excuse to not actually say anything.

Funny how you have such knowledge about my previous run-ins, such a coincidence those guys are the ones who've been posting on here too , but you fail to mention the others who have managed to let bygones be bygones and I've liked or agreed with..

It seems fairly obvious you're not here to contribute to the thread generally, so I'll leave you to trawel through the thousands of posts in the tuning section to get what they, oops, typo, you want 👍

It's been lovely talking to you, but I don't think our conversation is benefiting the thread, so I'm going to leave you be..

Have a nice day now won't you..

God bless

Kiss kiss

end of/

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Just trying to lighten up the mood.

 

[Tornado]

such a coincidence those guys are the ones who've been posting on here too , but you fail to mention the others who have managed to let bygones be bygones and I've liked or agreed with..

That failure would be because I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not knowledgeable of, nor am I interested in, your personal slights of the past. I have said as much since my first post. I did not know you before this thread. I did not know of your past arguments with the people in this thread before this thread. I did not know any of the people arguing against you beyond knowing that Stotty owns a Porsche. That's literally what the part you quoted was saying, since you were implying I did know what you were talking about with your previous post.


I cannot understand how you continuously interpret that as meaning I'm in league with these people you feel are out to get you over something I knew nothing about until you kept bringing it up. All I was looking for was some of the knowledge you claimed to have but refuse to elaborate on when questioned that I had never heard before, instead of your constant slap fights.

 

[Imari]

Car: Honda S500 '63
Tires: Stock (CM)
Parts added: Suspension (stock except for camber settings) Trans (Stock)
No oil change
Track: Tsukuba
Time: 15:30
Temp. 73 degrees F
Grip Reduction: Real

Test Results

• 0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
• 4.0/0.0 1'24.822
• 3.0/0.0 1'24.783
• 2.0/0.0 1'24.415
• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
• 0.0/4.0 1'24.633
• 0.0/3.0 1'24.364
• 0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber
• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229
• 1.0/1.0 1'24.313
• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233
• 3.0/3.0 1'24.516
• 4.0/4.0 1'24.997

So, now knowing where my possible sweet spot for front and rear camber was, I further tweaked the camber values and ended up with 0.6/2.2 with a time of 1'24.129. To further validate this and while I was still in the groove, I went and re-ran 0.0/0.0 camber again ending up with a time of 1'24.407. So, as you can see, my numbers here back up my beliefs, camber works and is not broken. Knowing these numbers, I can now apply them, with a few adjustments, into a stable, fast, and competitive tune.

In closing, I would just like to once again say that I am in no way claiming my findings to be fact, but only what I believe to be true through my own testing. Now, its been a long day, I'm off to rest now. Happy Holidays everyone.

Interesting. Good testing (and a lot of work in that). 👍👍

The one thing I would ask is what is your confidence on those times? Personally, if I do a six lap session with exactly the same car I'll probably get a best lap within a tenth or two of any other six lap session, meaning that really any sessions that I do that are +/- 0.2 of a second of each other are potentially the same.

So for example, if I'd done those sessions, I would have judged everything below about 2 degrees to be basically the same. You may be more consistent than I could be, so it'd be interesting to know.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

Interesting. Good testing (and a lot of work in that). 👍👍

The one thing I would ask is what is your confidence on those times? Personally, if I do a six lap session with exactly the same car I'll probably get a best lap within a tenth or two of any other six lap session, meaning that really any sessions that I do that are +/- 0.2 of a second of each other are potentially the same.

So for example, if I'd done those sessions, I would have judged everything below about 2 degrees to be basically the same. You may be more consistent than I could be, so it'd be interesting to know.

Thanks, and yea, it was a lot of work considering my present physical condition. And yea, I guess I should have added my consistency level. In all tests that I do, I always make sure my runs are very consistant otherwise I will discard the results and start over. In this test, all of my sessions were well within .100 of each other. Running automatic trans really helps with consistency as it takes away any human shifting variables. The only thing I had to worry about was smooth throttle and brake inputs which was really no problem because of the car I used, a very low powered Honda. I also chose that car because of the 50/50 weight balance. I try to make sure I have all bases covered and all my ducks in a row when I do these tests. I do a lot of "behind the scenes" testing and experimentation on a weekly basis which does get pretty tedious but its well worth it with some of the things I'm able to figure out. Thanks again for the compliment, appreciate it.

Happy Holidays.

 

[OdeFinn]

Great, now we have to get Kaz here to see how GT6 generates human drama.. lol

Maybe we all can get some Christmas feeling here and bury war axes.

Please cut the 🤬 out and stay on topic, thanks.

 

[PJTierney]

Just put a room up for camber testing.

Room name: GTPlanet camber testing
Room#: 1472-4711-0167-3382-4408

RESULTS


Ok ladies and gents, here's what I came up with after a short testing period. I did not do any road course testing as my findings at the Motegi oval gave me enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

Car: Honda S2000 '06 (235hp 163ft-lbs) (1250kg)
Tires: Comfort Soft on all four corners
Wheel: G27

The only modification to the car was a full racing suspension. Ride height, spring rates, dampers, and roll bars were all matched to the stock suspension. Toe was set to 0 front and rear for all runs. Runs were 10 or so laps each until the lowest consistent time was achieved. I chose this car and tire combo for the chassis balance and the speed. You can't take turns 3-4 flat. All runs were in 6th gear only, lifting into turn 3 (lifting ONLY, no brakes at all) and then getting back to power as soon as possible for the run out of 4 onto the front straight.

Run 1:
Camber front - 0
Camber rear - 0

Consistent 45.1 occasionally dipping into the high 45.2 range.

Turns 1 and 2 are flat, but requires some extra wheel input in the center to keep the car on the white line as the front starts to push a little. In turns 3 and 4 the car starts to slide up the track after getting back to power with the front end wanting to wash away.

Run 2:
Camber front - 1.0
Camber rear - 0

Consistent 45.0

Turns 1 and 2 now require less wheel input and the car has far less push in the center of the corner. In turns 3-4 I can now get back to power sooner, and the front end still pushes, but not as bad.

Run 3:
Camber front - 2.0
Camber rear - 0

Consistent 44.9

Turns 1 and 2 require even less wheel input, barely leaving center. Turns 3 and 4 I can lift a little later and get back to power even earlier with less push than before through turn 4.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the lap time results and the car handling changes with the camber changes, IMO camber is not broken, and is working properly.

Interesting results. Bringing it to the new page so that it doesn't get drowned out by the other comments

 

[super_gt]

Just put a room up for camber testing.

Room name: GTPlanet camber testing
Room#: 1472-4711-0167-3382-4408

RESULTS


Ok ladies and gents, here's what I came up with after a short testing period. I did not do any road course testing as my findings at the Motegi oval gave me enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

Car: Honda S2000 '06 (235hp 163ft-lbs) (1250kg)
Tires: Comfort Soft on all four corners
Wheel: G27

The only modification to the car was a full racing suspension. Ride height, spring rates, dampers, and roll bars were all matched to the stock suspension. Toe was set to 0 front and rear for all runs. Runs were 10 or so laps each until the lowest consistent time was achieved. I chose this car and tire combo for the chassis balance and the speed. You can't take turns 3-4 flat. All runs were in 6th gear only, lifting into turn 3 (lifting ONLY, no brakes at all) and then getting back to power as soon as possible for the run out of 4 onto the front straight.

Run 1:
Camber front - 0
Camber rear - 0

Consistent 45.1 occasionally dipping into the high 45.2 range.

Turns 1 and 2 are flat, but requires some extra wheel input in the center to keep the car on the white line as the front starts to push a little. In turns 3 and 4 the car starts to slide up the track after getting back to power with the front end wanting to wash away.

Run 2:
Camber front - 1.0
Camber rear - 0

Consistent 45.0

Turns 1 and 2 now require less wheel input and the car has far less push in the center of the corner. In turns 3-4 I can now get back to power sooner, and the front end still pushes, but not as bad.

Run 3:
Camber front - 2.0
Camber rear - 0

Consistent 44.9

Turns 1 and 2 require even less wheel input, barely leaving center. Turns 3 and 4 I can lift a little later and get back to power even earlier with less push than before through turn 4.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the lap time results and the car handling changes with the camber changes, IMO camber is not broken, and is working properly.

I did the same test as you but with sports hard tires and I took all corners flat out(full throttle)
with camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
and camber front 2.0 rear 0.0
and the lap times were identical
The difference was only 0.001 second.
I did 30-40 laps with each setup.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Alright guys, as painful as it was for me to do this due to the fact that I am fresh out of the hospital and all stitched up , I just sat through 5 hours of testing to bring some numbers to the table. First, let me say that when PD announced some updates ago that they fixed the camber issue, I was one of the few people who believed that it was indeed fixed...to an extent. I still believe that. I did loads of testing back then to come to my conclusion, I did not just take PD's word that it was fixed. With this most recent update in regards to camber further being tweaked, I have not felt any difference compared to the update where they fixed it, everything feels and works the same as it did after that update, in my opinion. I would further like to say that I am not claiming my findings here to be fact, only how I see things from my point of view after all the testing I have done in the game in regards to this issue. After the "camber" update, if you will, I tested 3 cars of each drivetrain of various power levels. I cannot begin to tell you how thorough I was in my testing after that update. I feel that I left no stone unturned in coming to my conclusion. I say this because this time around, I have only had time to do this one in depth test with this one car so far, but that's enough for me to come to the same conclusion I came to back at the original "camber" update. Like I said earlier, I believe that camber is indeed fixed for the most part. I more less just did this test so I would have some numbers to bring to the table. Ok, about the test.

I wanted to take out as many variables as I could, so this is how I went about it. I had my daughter help me with this test. Her job was to punch in the camber numbers into the suspension setting without me knowing which ones I was driving in each session. This was done in order to take out the element of me knowing which settings I was driving and when, just trying to take out as much of the human "mind over matter" element that I could. She filled in the chart that I had made as we went. I used a low powered car at a short track to minimized as much of the drivers input as I could: minimal throttle/brake/steering input and the like. I also used automatic transmission to take out any shifting variables. With this, I was able to pretty much replicate each lap exactly in regards to inputs and driving line, I was very constant with my inputs in this test. Here are the rest of the parameters. Each session was 6 laps.

Car: Honda S500 '63
Tires: Stock (CM)
Parts added: Suspension (stock except for camber settings) Trans (Stock)
No oil change
Track: Tsukuba
Time: 15:30
Temp. 73 degrees F
Grip Reduction: Real

Test Results

• 0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
• 4.0/0.0 1'24.822
• 3.0/0.0 1'24.783
• 2.0/0.0 1'24.415
• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
• 0.0/4.0 1'24.633
• 0.0/3.0 1'24.364
• 0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber
• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229
• 1.0/1.0 1'24.313
• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233
• 3.0/3.0 1'24.516
• 4.0/4.0 1'24.997

So, now knowing where my possible sweet spot for front and rear camber was, I further tweaked the camber values and ended up with 0.6/2.2 with a time of 1'24.129. To further validate this and while I was still in the groove, I went and re-ran 0.0/0.0 camber again ending up with a time of 1'24.407. So, as you can see, my numbers here back up my beliefs, camber works and is not broken. Knowing these numbers, I can now apply them, with a few adjustments, into a stable, fast, and competitive tune.

In closing, I would just like to once again say that I am in no way claiming my findings to be fact, but only what I believe to be true through my own testing. Now, its been a long day, I'm off to rest now. Happy Holidays everyone.

Interesting. How do you account for the fact that adding both understeer and oversteer were both beneficial?

0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
0.0/1.0 1'24.229
0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber

 

[eclipsee]

• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214
• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229
• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233

I don't understand why you say camber works and is not broken when you achieved nearly the same time with camber at 1.0/0.0 or 0.0/1.0 or 2.0/2.0, can you elaborate please?

 

[OdeFinn]

Interesting. How do you account for the fact that adding both understeer and oversteer were both beneficial?

0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
0.0/1.0 1'24.229
0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber

Guessing : soft default suspension, open lock, so much body roll at that your guess of understeer didn't happen. Camber effect is still combination of different settings. Even drivetrain and wings, gearbox lock etc all have their own small role to play on camber tune. On this part low power car on "defaults" except camber and it just not do that understeer.

Camber is not just "understeer or oversteer". Many can find it doing those things, and even on "opposite" way, just by doing tune what makes them work upside down on some certain range.

 

[LVracerGT]

I did the same test as you but with sports hard tires and I took all corners flat out(full throttle)
with camber front 0.0 rear 0.0
and camber front 2.0 rear 0.0
and the lap times were identical
The difference was only 0.001 second.
I did 30-40 laps with each setup.

This is why I chose comfort softs. If you're already flat out, adding camber isn't going to drop lap times. This is why I also detailed the car handling characteristics and how the camber changes affected them.

 

[Lionheart2113]

@Johnnypenso I know this might be a lot to ask, but would it be possible to put all of the posts that actually contain test numbers to the opening post? If not, I could do a post and you could link it from there????

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Johnnypenso I know this might be a lot to ask, but would it be possible to put all of the posts that actually contain test numbers to the opening post? If not, I could do a post and you could link it from there????

With all of the shenanigans yesterday I contemplated asking the mods to close the thread actually. But since it's still open I followed up on your suggestion and posted up what I thought was relevant in the OP

 

[Lionheart2113]

With all of the shenanigans yesterday I contemplated asking the mods to close the thread actually. But since it's still open I followed up on your suggestion and posted up what I thought was relevant in the OP

Yeah, I didn't view the thread yesterday and came back to 2 pages of it today. Yikes! Anyways, cheers for that, will make for an easier read.

 

[Rotorist]

Alright guys, as painful as it was for me to do this due to the fact that I am fresh out of the hospital and all stitched up , I just sat through 5 hours of testing to bring some numbers to the table. Now, its been a long day, I'm off to rest now. Happy Holidays everyone.

You are a great guy. This was too helpful. We appreciate your time and effort. Have a rest now and I wish you a merry Chrismas and rapid recovery.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

I don't understand why you say camber works and is not broken when you achieved nearly the same time with camber at 1.0/0.0 or 0.0/1.0 or 2.0/2.0, can you elaborate please?

My fastest base time with no camber was 1'24.407. If you notice, I had faster times with a certain amount of camber, front and rear. After tweaking camber, front and rear, I ended up with a time of 1'24.129, almost 3 tenths faster. Not to mention the car felt nice and planted the entire lap. Like I said, this is not the first test I ran where the numbers supported my beliefs. I said this before after the last update where they did work on camber, you have to tune the car where all parts are working together. You just can't work up a tune and throw in camber and expect it to work. You can't jack up the spring rate, have a ridiculous rake, use the damper and ARB settings like an on/off switch and expect camber to work. Yes, you can be fast that way, but there is also time to be gained by using camber. At any rate, I know you could probably don't buy into my beliefs here and that's fine, I'm not trying to sell them. I have my beliefs and I know what works for me, at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

Happy Holidays

 

[eclipsee]

You still don't explain the reason why you achieve the same time with different values of camber.

You just can't work up a tune and throw in camber and expect it to work. You can't jack up the spring rate, have a ridiculous rake, use the damper and ARB settings like an on/off switch and expect camber to work.

I already have heard that song before and I think that argument is wrong, from GT1 to GT5 you could adjust camber anytime without bearing in mind suspension and it was working, I don't see why this shouldn't be possible in GT6.

At any rate, I know you could probably don't buy into my beliefs here and that's fine, I'm not trying to sell them. I have my beliefs and I know what works for me, at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

Of course, use whatever makes you faster or what you're comfortable with, I don't want to convince anyone to use zero camber too.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

You still don't explain the reason why you achieve the same time with different values of camber.


I already have heard that song before and I think that argument is wrong, from GT1 to GT5 you could adjust camber anytime without bearing in mind suspension and it was working, I don't see why this shouldn't be possible in GT6.


Of course, use whatever makes you faster or what you're comfortable with, I don't want to convince anyone to use zero camber too.

Honestly, I don't really know why those numbers that you singled out were so close. I just ran the laps and let the numbers fall where they did. What I can tell you though is how the car felt with each of those numbers you quoted.

• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 - Front felt planted through turn in, middle and exit of corner.

• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229 - Car felt neutral until corner exit where it really felt planted, giving me a great exit out of the corner.

• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233 - Car felt great through all phases of the corner except for the middle out, where I noticed a slight push. Also down the straight, the car felt a bit floaty, probably because of the high camber on both ends of the car.

I hope this answers your question. Like I said, I just ran the laps and then let the numbers tell the story.

Happy Holidays

 

[Johnnypenso]

Honestly, I don't really know why those numbers that you singled out were so close. I just ran the laps and let the numbers fall where they did. What I can tell you though is how the car felt with each of those numbers you quoted.

• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 - Front felt planted through turn in, middle and exit of corner.

• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229 - Car felt neutral until corner exit where it really felt planted, giving me a great exit out of the corner.

• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233 - Car felt great through all phases of the corner except for the middle out, where I noticed a slight push. Also down the straight, the car felt a bit floaty, probably because of the high camber on both ends of the car.

I hope this answers your question. Like I said, I just ran the laps and then let the numbers tell the story.

Happy Holidays

While I don't doubt your feelings on the matter, the fact is that if camber actually worked the way it works in a real car you'd have those same feelings + you'd be faster around the track and have better tire wear. Your test seems to confirm what OdeFinn and perhaps others have said, which is that camber changes how a car feels which is more of a FFB thing IMO, but doesn't change what is actually happening on the track because the lap times don't seem to change.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

While I don't doubt your feelings on the matter, the fact is that if camber actually worked the way it works in a real car you'd have those same feelings + you'd be faster around the track and have better tire wear. Your test seems to confirm what OdeFinn and perhaps others have said, which is that camber changes how a car feels which is more of a FFB thing IMO, but doesn't change what is actually happening on the track because the lap times don't seem to change.

Did you not see my lap times? I was fastest with the use of camber. Look, I know I'm a nobody here. I don't have a garage full of tunes, I haven't written any award winning guides, and I am not a top driver, but people asked for my test results, so I gave them. Believe what you want to believe, but for me, camber works in that it makes the car feel better plus it does help improve lap times...from my perspective anyway. And for the record, I don't believe for a minute that its just a FFB thing, not when at higher levels of front camber the car starts pushing. That's not FFB, that's a physics action. At any rate, I ran the test and posted my numbers.....now I'll just go back to my cave.

Happy Holidays

 

[Johnnypenso]

Did you not see my lap times? I was fastest with the use of camber. Look, I know I'm a nobody here. I don't have a garage full of tunes, I haven't written any award winning guides, and I am not a top driver, but people asked for my test results, so I gave them. Believe what you want to believe, but for me, camber works in that it makes the car feel better plus it does help improve lap times...from my perspective anyway. And for the record, I don't believe for a minute that its just a FFB thing, not when at higher levels of front camber the car starts pushing. That's not FFB, that's a physics action. At any rate, I ran the test and posted my numbers.....now I'll just go back to my cave.

Happy Holidays

I did see your lap times. If you throw out the 3.0 and 4.0 camber results you get this:

• 0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
• 2.0/0.0 1'24.415
• 0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber
• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229
• 1.0/1.0 1'24.313
• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233

IMO these lap times are so close together as to be almost identical but....

Your two fastest times have 0.0 camber on one end.
You gain 2/10ths by adding 1.0 to the front only. You gain 2/10ths by adding 1.0 to the rear only. So logically if you add it to both ends you should see at least the same 2/10ths gain, if not more. Instead, you are 1/10th slower. In effect, adding 1.0 camber to either end, when the other end already has 1.0 made you slower.
I'm not an automotive engineer, but if camber is working as it should, I don't see how this can be the case. IMO these results are inconclusive.

 

[GTP_CargoRatt]

I did see your lap times. If you throw out the 3.0 and 4.0 camber results you get this:

• 0.0/0.0 1'24.435 BASE TIME
• 2.0/0.0 1'24.415
• 0.0/2.0 1'24.132 Fastest time with rear camber
• 0.0/1.0 1'24.229
• 1.0/1.0 1'24.313
• 1.0/0.0 1'24.214 Fastest time with front camber
• 2.0/2.0 1'24.233

IMO these lap times are so close together as to be almost identical but....

Your two fastest times have 0.0 camber on one end.
You gain 2/10ths by adding 1.0 to the front only. You gain 2/10ths by adding 1.0 to the rear only. So logically if you add it to both ends you should see at least the same 2/10ths gain, if not more. Instead, you are 1/10th slower. In effect, adding 1.0 camber to either end, when the other end already has 1.0 made you slower.
I'm not an automotive engineer, but if camber is working as it should, I don't see how this can be the case. IMO these results are inconclusive.

So, in other words, I just wasted my time. Next time I'll just leave it up to you and the rest of the elite people around here to contribute their findings since mine don't mean anything. Not upset that you are disagreeing with me, but more pissed at the fact that I took the time yesterday to do this as a contribution only to have you say it means nothing. Well, it means something to me, and that's all that counts. From now on I'll keep my findings to myself and let you experts handle things. I'm off back to my cave.

end/of

 

[eclipsee]

Forget the drama Mitch, it's not needed to be so sensitive, nobody knows 100% what exactly is happening with the current camber, that's why this thread exists and some people like you is doing tests (myself included too) trying to figure out what's happening in this matter, personally I was using front camber in the Suzuka seasonal TT and I felt the car was gaining front grip at mid corner in some curves but it wasn't translated in better lap times which is really odd, as said, maybe it's a FFB thing, I don't know.

I hope this answers your question. Like I said, I just ran the laps and then let the numbers tell the story.

Sadly it doesn't but thanks for your feedback anyway, what those numbers tell me is that there's something weird and camber doesn't work as it should, only my opinion of course.

 

[Motor City Hami]

So, in other words, I just wasted my time. Next time I'll just leave it up to you and the rest of the elite people around here to contribute their findings since mine don't mean anything. Not upset that you are disagreeing with me, but more pissed at the fact that I took the time yesterday to do this as a contribution only to have you say it means nothing. Well, it means something to me, and that's all that counts. From now on I'll keep my findings to myself and let you experts handle things. I'm off back to my cave.

end/of

Chill Mitch. I took it as questioning in an effort to understand, not to disprove your test. On the subject of camber, anyone who posts test results can expect to have their numbers looked at from every angle. If you are not prepared for that level of scrutiny, then it may not be the game experience that you want to engage in. You tested one car on one track with one set of tires and you yourself said that by no means your test was complete and definitive.