PD turned the Pagani Huayra a monster

[dmcallis]

That was not my intention. Sorry.

How was your 270 attained?

Tuning?
Draft?
The downhill?

Just curious.

(note: I do this kind of testing all the time, so I'm experienced at it...)

 

[eSZee]

The math going on in here is almost as bad as bro-science in the gym.

It's bad, but it's not that bad.
Would type more but anabrolic window is closing fast and I need to chug down these shakes brah.

Great, now i'm looking like an idiot. ><

Welcome to the team.

 

[YZF]

I just took the '13 Huarya out to SSX. It was stock, non-anniversary version. Tested using Like the Wind race 3 in ia.
Top sustained speed on level, no draft 259mph.

And IRL it's what? ~230mph? That's a beefy 30mph 'extra'...

 

[Fogerty_Jr]

Just bought one based on this thread. Ok, it's overpowered, but it handles like a brick... almost untamable with a ds3 when full tuned

 

[jr93alty]

And IRL it's what? ~230mph? That's a beefy 30mph 'extra'...

Yea. A claimed 231mph top speed.

 

[YZF]

Just bought one based on this thread. Ok, it's overpowered, but it handles like a brick... almost untamable with a ds3 when full tuned

It's not the car - it's unrealistic calculation of aero physics. The SL55AMG or Ferrari F40 or Ford GT all have 20-30mph higher top speed than in real life.

 

[JohnBM01]

I tested the 2013 Huayra in Arcade Mode at Special Stage Route X. That car is a demon! An angelic devil. I think I managed to pull 260 mph on SSRX. I unfortunately didn't get that Trophy for going over 246 mph for a certain amount of time in a car not specifically provided for an event. I want to do some road racing with the Huayra next. I may want to test out the car at two tracks I see as my own test tracks- Eiger Nordwand Short Track and Apricot Hill Raceway.

As an off-topic note, the Pagani Huayra comes in a beautiful golden color. I don't have a Huayra in my GT6 collection, but I'll surely get one in that gold color.

 

[Snow_leopard]

But the real factor is the track it self SSR-X the road is perfect.No bumbs and the road is really long i dont see a track like that in real life.

 

[jr93alty]

But the real factor is the track it self SSR-X the road is perfect.No bumbs and the road is really long i dont see a track like that in real life.

Read previous posts. This is irrelevant. When top speed runs are made on Ehra Lessien, it's essentially a perfect track with engineers everywhere and tire pressures even adjusted according to climate. Something we don't have to do in GT. Overcoming the force of wind resistance is the main factor in top speed when speeds are this high and no track is going to drastically affect top speed assuming traction is available (I understand that cars don't reach as high of speeds on salt flats when tires are constantly slipping). I guess a track inside a vacuum would have an effect as well.

 

[dmcallis]

True that you can get unrealistic speeds in the game.
As has been pointed out, PD says they are still working on the Aero model so they know it isn't quite right.

Good to let everyone know when there is a problem (I hope the new model fixes the Flat Floors) but it's hardly a revelation for PD and hardly a BIG problem for the users as it affects everyone equally.

Yes, you do not quite get "real world" results, but how is that a real problem, particularly with something they are still working on? I'm waiting for the thing to be fixed too, I just do not see how it is causing a problem with using the program. It's not like we are getting a distorted world view because we can go too fast in our simulated cars, making us dangerous in the real world...
Come to think of it, maybe PD should mandate "heavy damage" for races so people learn they need to avoid collisions, given that there are consequences to hitting things.
That would help to solve the biggest problem in realism, right?

There would be a real problem with unrealistic top speeds (in game) only if it affected some cars differently than others, making them slower/faster than others they should be faster/slower than.
Does anyone know of any cases where the aero model is doing this?

 

[Vegard]

^Good post.

The problem is that we're car-crazies who like to demonstrate our knownledge in order boost our egos

There would be a real problem with unrealistic top speeds (in game) only if it affected some cars differently than others, making them slower/faster than others they should be faster/slower than.
Does anyone know of any cases where the aero model is doing this?

It does, to some extent, affect cars differently:

A car that is geared to do top speed in top gear will gain little in terms of ultimate top speed while some cars will take great advantage of the reduced drag (see C7 Stingray).

Of course, this is just a "problem" with stock gearboxes and on SSRX so it's just a minor technicallity.

The Pagani is somewhere in the first category, because the power drops off quite a bit in the high RPM range.

 

[Leggy1]

There would be a real problem with unrealistic top speeds (in game) only if it affected some cars differently than others, making them slower/faster than others they should be faster/slower than.
Does anyone know of any cases where the aero model is doing this?

I reached 235mph in my 840hp Dodge Charger (old one) but my 940hp XJ220 struggled to get past 240 mph. Both cars were tested on SSRX and the speeds were reached on the flat section without nos, gear ratios adjusted properly. I'm no aerodynamics expert but this seems way off.

 

[dmcallis]

I reached 235mph in my 840hp Dodge Charger (old one) but my 940hp XJ220 struggled to get past 240 mph. Both cars were tested on SSRX and the speeds were reached on the flat section without nos, gear ratios adjusted properly. I'm no aerodynamics expert but this seems way off.

Was the XJ220 the road car or the Race car?
Most race cares have Flat Floors and massive aero both of which drastically affect top speed (in a bad way).

Otherwise yeah, the XJ220 would seem to have an advantage in the drag department...

I'll have to look at this tomorrow.

 

[Leggy1]

Was the XJ220 the road car or the Race car?
Most race cares have Flat Floors and massive aero both of which drastically affect top speed (in a bad way).

Otherwise yeah, the XJ220 would seem to have an advantage in the drag department...

I'll have to look at this tomorrow.

Yeah it was the road car, the McLaren F1, Tommykaira ZZII and Nissan R390 road car seem to have too much drag too, especially compared to most other cars in the game.

Flat floors shouldn't reduce top speed like they do in GT6, thats another thing wrong with this aero model. Maybe theres just a 'more downforce always equals more drag' thing in the aero model.

 

[dmcallis]

Yeah it was the road car, the McLaren F1, Tommykaira ZZII and Nissan R390 road car seem to have too much drag too, especially compared to most other cars in the game.

Flat floors shouldn't reduce top speed like they do in GT6, thats another thing wrong with this aero model. Maybe theres just a 'more downforce always equals more drag' thing in the aero model.

Given that list, (all are basically road versions of race cars or road legal race cars) I wonder if they HAVE flat floors IRL?

That'd explain it...

Agreed with your theory.

edit: I remember the Ferrari California and Italia have diffusers (flat floors) by design (as well as others probably.)
Need to look at them as well re: top speed.

 

[Leggy1]

Given that list, (all are basically road versions of race cars or road legal race cars) I wonder if they HAVE flat floors IRL?

That'd explain it...

Agreed with your theory.

Yep they do, but then so does the Huayra, Veyron and other modern high-end supercars that get excessive speeds in game.

Another problem is adjustable downforce on cars like the ZZII that don't have wings at all, but I think that's been in GT for ages.

All a bit strange really.

 

[Exorcet]

Given that list, (all are basically road versions of race cars or road legal race cars) I wonder if they HAVE flat floors IRL?

That'd explain it...

Agreed with your theory.

edit: I remember the Ferrari California and Italia have diffusers (flat floors) by design (as well as others probably.)
Need to look at them as well re: top speed.

The flat floor mod is probably completely separate from flat floors on stock cars. Stock probably most likely have some hardcoded drag and lift values, though it's impossible to say without looking into the game code. One hint might be found by comparing high downforce cars to lower downforce ones. If the game is simply tossing drag at you solely for having downforce, LMP's should be very slow, as slow as the Escudo if not slower.

Another problem is adjustable downforce on cars like the ZZII that don't have wings at all, but I think that's been in GT for ages.

You can adjust downforce without wings, but I agree this is an issue, usually for older race cars which somehow are as good as modern ones aerodynamically.

 

[Leggy1]

The flat floor mod is probably completely separate from flat floors on stock cars. Stock probably most likely have some hardcoded drag and lift values, though it's impossible to say without looking into the game code. One hint might be found by comparing high downforce cars to lower downforce ones. If the game is simply tossing drag at you solely for having downforce, LMP's should be very slow, as slow as the Escudo if not slower.


You can adjust downforce without wings, but I agree this is an issue, usually for older race cars which somehow are as good as modern ones aerodynamically.

I remember on GT5 there was a tyre load indicator that you could show in race. When I was testing cars like the Enzo and McLaren F1 (with no custom wings/aero parts added) on SSRX, the indicator would show increasing tyre load with speed, suggesting that these cars produced downforce. I don't know if it is the same in GT6 as there is no tyre load thing, but there is definitely an issue with the difference between stock and custom flat floors.

LMPs are slower than road cars with similar power, which is correct. They shouldn't be slower than the Escudo though as they produce less downforce, even though in the settings the Escudo has lower numbers. Also the size and shape of the LMPs bodies are very aerodynamic (ignoring wings) compared to the Escudo and pretty much every road car.

 

[Exorcet]

there is definitely an issue with the difference between stock and custom flat floors.

From what I hear, I agree.

They shouldn't be slower than the Escudo though as they produce less downforce,

The Escudo's wings will make a lot more downforce than the LMP's, but it's body probably produces more lift as well, and I don't know if the underbody would be as effective as an LMP's. Whether or not this is even modeled is another question.

What I was saying though, was that if the game was determining drag just from downforce, or mostly be downforce, which is what I interpretted dmcallis' post as saying, then the LMP cars shouldn't be far off from the Escudo.

the size and shape of the LMPs bodies are very aerodynamic (ignoring wings) compared to the Escudo and pretty much every road car.

Yes, and I think this is probably accounted for in game. I don't think the "slow" cars would be suffering from extra flat floor drag. That drag is unique to the custom floor part.

 

[Leggy1]

The Escudo's wings will make a lot more downforce than the LMP's, but it's body probably produces more lift as well, and I don't know if the underbody would be as effective as an LMP's. Whether or not this is even modeled is another question.

I think the overall downforce of the Escudo is higher, the underbody shouldn't be as effective as the ride height is higher. But yes I don't think the modelling is correct.

What I was saying though, was that if the game was determining drag just from downforce, or mostly be downforce, which is what I interpretted dmcallis' post as saying, then the LMP cars shouldn't be far off from the Escudo.

Yes that is what would happen, it could be a mix of normal body drag and downforce that the game uses to determine overall drag.

Yes, and I think this is probably accounted for in game. I don't think the "slow" cars would be suffering from extra flat floor drag. That drag is unique to the custom floor part.

Yes I think so, and yes I agree there.

I think the gap between the fastest and the slowest car's top speeds should be made smaller, 1200hp shouldn't mean 300mph in any car, and flat floors shouldn't mean less speed.

 

[JohnBM01]

I finally got to road race the Huayra in an Arcade Time Trial. The car is quite sweet as I was testing at Apricot Hill at night with this car. I have always respected Pagani in the Gran Turismo series since its debut in Gran Turismo 3. I stayed with Pagani even when people kept complaining and whining that Ferrari and Lamborghini weren't in the game- as if they were the only Italian world-class car makers or the only Italian supercar makers.

Anyhow, I still think this is a very good car.

 

[Sederholm]

Getting the top speed right should not be a problem.
When you have decided how aero and friction works (when you have your model) now you just need to set the amount of available power to determine what the top speed will be.
And that power figure doesn't necessarily have to be represented as horsepower, you can still print whatever number you want on the spec. sheet.

 

[Exorcet]

If you need to hardcode in a special number to get the right speed for all the cars, something is wrong. The point of using a physics engine is that it makes it easy (you only need to worry about basic data like engine power and from that, you get the correct result) and it has the ability to predict, so the model is correct even in unforseen conditions.

They could go in and edit the power for each car behind the scenes, but it would be a lot of work and might cause other problems.

 

[SciroccoRich]

If you need to hardcode in a special number to get the right speed for all the cars, something is wrong. The point of using a physics engine is that it makes it easy (you only need to worry about basic data like engine power and from that, you get the correct result) and it has the ability to predict, so the model is correct even in unforseen conditions.

They could go in and edit the power for each car behind the scenes, but it would be a lot of work and might cause other problems.

Not to mention that if you just pre-programme numbers, when you modify cars all the numbers will be different!

 

[SavageEvil]

Getting the top speed right should not be a problem.
When you have decided how aero and friction works (when you have your model) now you just need to set the amount of available power to determine what the top speed will be.
And that power figure doesn't necessarily have to be represented as horsepower, you can still print whatever number you want on the spec. sheet.

Wait what? You're forgetting that this is a game and certain things in real life aren't simulated such as tire destruction which would more than likely happen with many of the cars reaching speeds 230 mph +, tires get hot and wear out rather quickly at sustained speeds because of friction. PD's aerodynamics engine isn't fully complete as it's not fully simulating a few things correctly.
1. drafting is missing drag reduction on the lead car, which would result in speed bump of 5 or so mph
2. seems like drag multiplier isn't working in conjunction with the increasing speed of the car, needs a bit of tweaking
3. PD also doesn't seem to simulate "dirty" disruptive air coming off a spoiler(deck lid projection on NASCAR), not a wing.

I like the fact that PD are actually trying to simulate aerodynamics in the game, you can feel the change in the GT3 cars very well. I hope they do more refinement in the area as it would great to experience lift in street cars when they reach high speeds. Yes pretty much every street car generates lift, read up on Bernoulli Effect for more on this, it's the reason why F1 cars have such high downforce even though their bodies create quite a bit of drag with exposed wheels and all.

I'd rather PD not try to fake top speeds by artificially inducing some sort of limit, that's just giving in. It's better to keep on working on their aerodynamics model and keep refining it. You guys wanting some arbitrary limitation are crazy, I prefer how they are working at it now. PS3 might not be able to calculate everything they want but why fake it when they can already simulate so many other factors to reasonable results?

 

[jr93alty]

Wait what? You're forgetting that this is a game and certain things in real life aren't simulated such as tire destruction which would more than likely happen with many of the cars reaching speeds 230 mph +, tires get hot and wear out rather quickly at sustained speeds because of friction. PD's aerodynamics engine isn't fully complete as it's not fully simulating a few things correctly.
1. drafting is missing drag reduction on the lead car, which would result in speed bump of 5 or so mph
2. seems like drag multiplier isn't working in conjunction with the increasing speed of the car, needs a bit of tweaking
3. PD also doesn't seem to simulate "dirty" disruptive air coming off a spoiler(deck lid projection on NASCAR), not a wing.

I like the fact that PD are actually trying to simulate aerodynamics in the game, you can feel the change in the GT3 cars very well. I hope they do more refinement in the area as it would great to experience lift in street cars when they reach high speeds. Yes pretty much every street car generates lift, read up on Bernoulli Effect for more on this, it's the reason why F1 cars have such high downforce even though their bodies create quite a bit of drag with exposed wheels and all.

I'd rather PD not try to fake top speeds by artificially inducing some sort of limit, that's just giving in. It's better to keep on working on their aerodynamics model and keep refining it. You guys wanting some arbitrary limitation are crazy, I prefer how they are working at it now. PS3 might not be able to calculate everything they want but why fake it when they can already simulate so many other factors to reasonable results?

I'm sure they'll eventually say it's the PS3's fault. GT has always blamed the hardware. The "AI" is on rails because of the hardware (even though other games have decent AI). Blaming other things doesn't make the game better. Things have to be pointed out or you end up with games like Madden where people defend it no matter how much something is off. I may not be a computer programmer for racing games but the concept of suspension/aero/center of gravity, etc seems pretty straight forward. Fairly good simulators have been around for more than a decade so hardware limitations shouldn't even be that big of an issue.

 

[SciroccoRich]

I'm sure they'll eventually say it's the PS3's fault. GT has always blamed the hardware. The "AI" is on rails because of the hardware (even though other games have decent AI). Blaming other things doesn't make the game better. Things have to be pointed out or you end up with games like Madden where people defend it no matter how much something is off. I may not be a computer programmer for racing games but the concept of suspension/aero/center of gravity, etc seems pretty straight forward. Fairly good simulators have been around for more than a decade so hardware limitations shouldn't even be that big of an issue.

It's not that simple to be honest. Creating the physics engine is about how all of those things you've mentioned interact with each other which requires significant maths. When all of these numbers are changing every microsecond (or however fast the game is programmed to look for them) you get an idea of just how computationally intensive it is to calculate these values. To then transfer these values on screen onto a working three-dimensional model with the graphics that there is makes it even worse. Then when you add in redundant processor cycles due to inefficient coding (which could be down to wither the progammers themselves creating errors or the language used (higher level programming languages are less efficient that something like C.))

When you add all of these things together you can understand just how difficult it is to create a realistic physics model.

Programming "AI" on the other hand should be a piece of p*** as all you'd have to do is have two or three different models - calm, medium and aggressive and randomly dish them out between the competing cars.

 

[jr93alty]

It's not that simple to be honest. Creating the physics engine is about how all of those things you've mentioned interact with each other which requires significant maths. When all of these numbers are changing every microsecond (or however fast the game is programmed to look for them) you get an idea of just how computationally intensive it is to calculate these values. To then transfer these values on screen onto a working three-dimensional model with the graphics that there is makes it even worse. Then when you add in redundant processor cycles due to inefficient coding (which could be down to wither the progammers themselves creating errors or the language used (higher level programming languages are less efficient that something like C.))

When you add all of these things together you can understand just how difficult it is to create a realistic physics model.

Programming "AI" on the other hand should be a piece of p*** as all you'd have to do is have two or three different models - calm, medium and aggressive and randomly dish them out between the competing cars.

Many engineers that take vehicle dynamics have to analyze a wheels reaction with pencil and paper so no, I can't understand what is so difficult. You analyze in steps. Get all your vectors around a wheel and analyze that wheel. Then compare each wheel with the cg. Vectors at the wheels have multipliers based on suspension stiffness, downforce/lift, etc...When broken down, it's not that difficult for today's processors. Like I said, simulators have been around forever and todays cars ASM systems monitor vehicle dynamics on tiny chips and that is real life where the vehicle doesn't understand the road in front of it whereas a playstation knows the course in front of it and the only unknown is the user input. Numerous manufacturers now have cars that can race around a track by computer faster than a human. The physics were reasonable in very old GT's so to be fairly horrible this many years later is pathetic.

 

[KinLM]

...cars that can race around a track by computer faster than a human. The physics were reasonable in very old GT's so to be fairly horrible this many years later is pathetic.

Your story was somewhat credible until right here. Such a shame.

 

[SciroccoRich]

Many engineers that take vehicle dynamics have to analyze a wheels reaction with pencil and paper so no, I can't understand what is so difficult. You analyze in steps. Get all your vectors around a wheel and analyze that wheel. Then compare each wheel with the cg. Vectors at the wheels have multipliers based on suspension stiffness, downforce/lift, etc...When broken down, it's not that difficult for today's processors. Like I said, simulators have been around forever and todays cars ASM systems monitor vehicle dynamics on tiny chips and that is real life where the vehicle doesn't understand the road in front of it whereas a playstation knows the course in front of it and the only unknown is the user input. Numerous manufacturers now have cars that can race around a track by computer faster than a human. The physics were reasonable in very old GT's so to be fairly horrible this many years later is pathetic.

As far as a simulator goes, GT6 is a very good one. It has its problems but it is still very good. The physics are the best they've ever been so that last sentence is ridiculous. Just because the top-speed and aero models are slightly out of kilter doesn't mean that it's horrible or pathetic.

You're right about the engineers. Except in racing teams, you'll have more than one engineer for different things, suspension, engine, gearbox etc. These engineers will deal with one car and have a much longer period of time to analyse and process this information into real world figures. Not into figures that computers understand. The thing is that it is still hard for todays processors, you obviously no nothing about programming if you think that re-creating real-world physics is easy for todays processors; not to mention that the Cell processor is nearly 10 years old!

You may have said that "simulators have been around forever", but it doesn't explain the reason why these simulators get refreshed on an almost yearly basis. If you have a go on any simulator from the early 90's, try and tell me that simulation hasn't improved. If you still think they haven't then you're an idiot! The reason why they keep updating is because they can do more and more sophisticated processing than before, meaning they can take more data entries than before, this leads to a far superior and more complex game, but it's never going to be perfect in terms of physics. Even car manufacturers can't create the perfect car based on computation alone, so how do you expect a 10 year old commercial computer to do so? You can't. All you can do is just improve on every release and GT6 has done that!