Physics thread
- Thread starter LVracerGT
- 1,459 comments
- 129,166 views
- 853
- Le Mans
- ElCondensator
Yup, you should distrust it so much as nobody today plays games, only nerds do that. Certainly not those who can race in real life.
Nope you should trust every sim racing elitist right away in comparison, for they know how to compare sim racing games.
Yup and you should deride people to be more legitimate.
LogiForce
Premium
- 4,078
- Groningen, Netherlands
- LogiForce86
- LogiForce
That's not what Dave Newsham has said though, as he stated "Closest racing sim to the real thing I have experienced.", but this indeed raises the question... "which other sims are less close that you've experienced?".
You're right. I shouldn't have and I am probably just taking it out on the wrong guy. Sorry, David.
I am just tired of all the criticism in the form of "Slightly Mad Studios is the anti-Christ" and all the conspiracy style of thinking happening ever since Project CARS started its development. No other sim, and possibly any game ever, has gotten so much hate thrown at it as Project CARS has. From my point of view it has taken on form beyond believe.
Even fellow sim fans that joined pCARS and stayed till the end are frowned upon by some parties on the web.
Anyway, Wolfe has mode a valid point. If you don't know the sim racing background of someone (professional or not), than if that person comparitive statements to previous played titles litterally has no real value.
Last edited:
GTAndy36
Premium
- 925
- Wiltshire, UK
- AndySimba
The biggest problem for me isn't that it's car per car in that way. What I'm trying to say is the biggest problem with the Force Feedback setup is how it's implemented. Why should you be able to change the feel of the cars so drastically? I thought the FFB was physics based? Well, how can it be if you can change the settings so wildly?
It makes the whole FFB system feel... un-natural.
If it was implemented in such a way that each wheel controller would have their own settings to get the best out of them, then gave us the option to adjust the strength and weight to suit, that would feel much more realistic. That's how other sims work as far as I'm aware.
- 229
- Hong Kong
- LotusTeam
LogiForce.....HELP!.....I see you have been very helpful and professional in the GTplanet forum for years, I am now sincerely seeking for your advice about my previous question to this thread but seems no one has replied me anything yet....
Here is the problem....I'm on PS4, using T300 GTE, T3PA-Pro, TH8A, and I'm so used to turning off the auto-clutch in the game and so obsessed with the heel-toe fun when driving.....
I have really really great fun on driving the Group4 BMW M1 Procar and Group5 (1 BMW & 1 Ford), but here comes the problem, whenever I use the clutch to shift 3th gear to 4th gear, it has about 50% chance that it could fail to shift up and just left in N-gear, and has no problem whatsoever on 1,2,3,5 gears........Up to now, I only discover these 3 cars have such shifting problem.
My question is...is it ONLY me or what? Have this been discussed before? And if yes, what problem is that? Is that again in the real world these cars are harder to shift from 3th to 4th gear???
Thank you for you advice as always!
Here is the problem....I'm on PS4, using T300 GTE, T3PA-Pro, TH8A, and I'm so used to turning off the auto-clutch in the game and so obsessed with the heel-toe fun when driving.....
I have really really great fun on driving the Group4 BMW M1 Procar and Group5 (1 BMW & 1 Ford), but here comes the problem, whenever I use the clutch to shift 3th gear to 4th gear, it has about 50% chance that it could fail to shift up and just left in N-gear, and has no problem whatsoever on 1,2,3,5 gears........Up to now, I only discover these 3 cars have such shifting problem.
My question is...is it ONLY me or what? Have this been discussed before? And if yes, what problem is that? Is that again in the real world these cars are harder to shift from 3th to 4th gear???
Thank you for you advice as always!
- 853
- Le Mans
- ElCondensator
That's kind of my point, be it a baker talking about rFactor or a driver about pCARS, I don't take for granted such declarations from a guy playing 2h with a pad and without elaborating a bit more, that's all.
And yeah pCARS is generating hate, pretty much like anything overly exposed or brutally highlighted nowadays.
Anyway, no problem now.
- 36
- Sweden
- SRT_Speedy
- 229
- Hong Kong
- LotusTeam
Thanks for the info bro...now at least I know I'm not the only one...as I tried many ways to resolve this problem, eg. By pass the DIN cable and used a separated USB from TH8A connected to pS4 but still no luck ....
- 229
- Hong Kong
- LotusTeam
Seems like adjusting the clutch deadzone and sensitivity to zero improves a very very little bit, I have tried many things now...the only 100% workaround is to turn in the auto-clutch for these cars and still use the clutch for shifting, but as u may be thinking already it sounds stupid....haha! Hope SMS can notice this problem and fix those 3 cars' 4th gear
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,029
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
OK I've been playing around with the Grp 5 320 Turbo in an invitational event and noticed that if you reduce the fuel load the rear gets a lot (and I mean a lot) more active under heavy breaking and the tyres are far more likely to lock up.
I had a feeling what may have been occurring, but wanted to check so I took a look at the tyre telemetry with the standard 90kg fuel load, with 120kg, 20kg and with 5kg.
120kg
90kg
20kg
5kg
What you will notice is that as fuel load decreases the the ride height at the rear increases quite significantly as follows:
120kgs:2.7" > 90kg:2.8" > 20kg:3.1" > 5kg:3.2"
And available suspension travel also changes, increasing as fuel load reduces:
120kgs:2.1" > 90kg:2.2" > 20kg:2.5" > 5kg:2.5"
All of which is a significant change in rear ride height from the default 90kgs being 2.8" to the 20kg I was using during practice and qualifying being 3.1". The 0.3" rise in rear ride height as the result of removing 70kg of fuel from what is already a very light car has a significant change on the braking performance of the car with cold tyres and from a high speed.
However the additional challenge it gave me at the very least brought me down this route and shows a depth to the physics that for me is certainly a first on a console. Showing that even such a simple change as fuel load, which many will do and not think about the impact of, can have a very significant effect on the car, its balance and how it handles.
Edited to correct values - many thanks @Saidur_Ali
I had a feeling what may have been occurring, but wanted to check so I took a look at the tyre telemetry with the standard 90kg fuel load, with 120kg, 20kg and with 5kg.
120kg
90kg
20kg
5kg
What you will notice is that as fuel load decreases the the ride height at the rear increases quite significantly as follows:
120kgs:2.7" > 90kg:2.8" > 20kg:3.1" > 5kg:3.2"
And available suspension travel also changes, increasing as fuel load reduces:
120kgs:2.1" > 90kg:2.2" > 20kg:2.5" > 5kg:2.5"
All of which is a significant change in rear ride height from the default 90kgs being 2.8" to the 20kg I was using during practice and qualifying being 3.1". The 0.3" rise in rear ride height as the result of removing 70kg of fuel from what is already a very light car has a significant change on the braking performance of the car with cold tyres and from a high speed.
However the additional challenge it gave me at the very least brought me down this route and shows a depth to the physics that for me is certainly a first on a console. Showing that even such a simple change as fuel load, which many will do and not think about the impact of, can have a very significant effect on the car, its balance and how it handles.
Edited to correct values - many thanks @Saidur_Ali
Last edited:
- 853
- Le Mans
- ElCondensator
I have no proof but I'm pretty sure car balance changes in GT6 depending on fuel load too. I remember having a hard time in the Formula GT with less than half the tank. The car becomes very oversteery under braking on hilly tracks (Red Bull Ring, Bathurst).
It probably is handled in a far more simplistic way but the result isn't that far from what you're saying.
It is checkable with GT6 telemetry though, but quite annoying as you have to empty the tank.
It probably is handled in a far more simplistic way but the result isn't that far from what you're saying.
It is checkable with GT6 telemetry though, but quite annoying as you have to empty the tank.
- 853
- Le Mans
- ElCondensator
Ride heights of 27, 28, 31 and 32 inches? Isn't ride height the distance between the ground and the lowest part of the car?
What you in, a monster truck?
ps. if I've missed something obvious, you'll have to pardon me
Project CARS uses metric system, ride height is in millimeters.
Edit: Wait I'm not sure that makes more sense
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,029
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Its the suspension height (my bad), so I would imagine its from the top of the suspension turret, the telemetry screen doesn't make it clear.Ride heights of 27, 28, 31 and 32 inches? Isn't ride height the distance between the ground and the lowest part of the car?
What you in, a monster truck?
ps. if I've missed something obvious, you'll have to pardon me
- 1,680
- Chicago, USA
Great catch, @Scaff! I just started the Historic GT5 Invitational with the BMW. I experienced the same "funny business" under heavy braking. Even with the telemetry on for testing and tuning, I didn't notice the ride height change. Now I have something else to look at for Practice session in Round 2.
EDIT: Ride height/suspension height. Tomato/potato.
EDIT: Ride height/suspension height. Tomato/potato.
- 6,789
- United Kingdom
KSaiyu
(Banned)
- 2,822
So was messing with the clutch in online races with a friend and stalled on the line. Unfortunately I didn't have a button mapped for "start engine" (I thought "auto start on" would restart it) so sat around on the grid for the race to end since it was only 3 laps. Start of the third lap I see my cars creeping (yes, it took that long to get the momentum to move) and I say to my dad who's a mechanic wouldn't it be funny if we could bump start it.
Turn auto clutch off, clutch in, bang it in first, clutch out and a jerk or two later we're up and running!
Turn auto clutch off, clutch in, bang it in first, clutch out and a jerk or two later we're up and running!
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,029
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
You may also want to tweak the engine brake mapping as well (same tuning screen as the fuel load), as its set to 1 by default and makes the car even more eager to lock the rears under heavy braking. I set it to 3 which does help, but you still need to take care to match engine speed to road speed when braking in the 320 to avoid locking the rears and the tail getting too happy.
Quite possible, but that would be SMS missing it rather than me if that's the case:
Last edited:
- 6,789
- United Kingdom
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,029
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Will take a look tonight, quite agree that 2.8" would make more sense.
I've looked at the ones with a 3x" figure and they have a mess of pixels at the bottom right of the 3 as well. One other thing that might make it clear is to set the bump to 3cm (as tuning always appear to be in cm) which should then show the bump as 0.1".
Last edited:
LogiForce
Premium
- 4,078
- Groningen, Netherlands
- LogiForce86
- LogiForce
So was messing with the clutch in online races with a friend and stalled on the line. Unfortunately I didn't have a button mapped for "start engine" (I thought "auto start on" would restart it) so sat around on the grid for the race to end since it was only 3 laps. Start of the third lap I see my cars creeping (yes, it took that long to get the momentum to move) and I say to my dad who's a mechanic wouldn't it be funny if we could bump start it.
Turn auto clutch off, clutch in, bang it in first, clutch out and a jerk or two later we're up and running!
Yup, we put that bit of realism in as well. It makes a manual gearbox seem more real, even if it's just a little thing. Sometimes if you spin out and the engine stalls, you now have the chance that if you have some rolling momentum eventually that you can bump start it and continue with your race.
Just having that little thing in just makes it all more real, as you can dependent on lady luck some more with it.
GTAndy36
Premium
- 925
- Wiltshire, UK
- AndySimba
Yup, we put that bit of realism in as well. It makes a manual gearbox seem more real, even if it's just a little thing. Sometimes if you spin out and the engine stalls, you now have the chance that if you have some rolling momentum eventually that you can bump start it and continue with your race.
Just having that little thing in just makes it all more real, as you can dependent on lady luck some more with it.
It's all well and good having these little realism tweaks... but if I can't drive the cars properly due to the centre spring forces... it really doesn't matter what the game is trying to simulate.
I'm a massive fan of what this game is, and what it's trying to do for sim racing. I just wish I could access it, because I can't right now.
- 10,917
- Sweden
- eran0004
Just like you can adjust your TV settings to make the picture better (or worse), you can adjust the FFB settings to make the FFB better (or worse). Regardless of the TV settings, the picture on the TV will still be based on the reality that is filmed by the camera, just like the FFB signal will be based on the simulated physics of the game.
GTAndy36
Premium
- 925
- Wiltshire, UK
- AndySimba
Yes. I know that. There's nothing wrong with the FFB. I've adjusted it to feel very good. However, no matter what I change, the Thrustmaster T300 on the PS4 has a fundamental problem, and that's the centre spring force. You can look across the forums here and on the Project CARS official forums and everyone who has the same setup as myself; PS4 + T300, will be having the exact same problem.
