Ruf's and Tire Physics?

  • Thread starter speedrcr
  • 81 comments
  • 13,283 views
I wish there would be a precise temperature display rather than a color graduation.

Not sure if you ever played GTR 2, but I really miss being able to cycle between modes and seeing Tire Temp and brake temps, not to mention engine temps and oil pressure so you could see if an engine failure was eminent due to "over driving".


I used to use tire temps to adjust my setup to get the best grip. I loved the fact there was 100's of livery of the 911 GT3, and GT3 RS. Normally though I would race the GT2 Bi-turbos in the old GT2 class of FIA GT series.

08.jpg
 
GTR 2 was released 7 years ago.

7 years - that's a product cycle in the car industry.
7 years is also round about the product cycle of consoles.

The product cycle of GT is a bit longer.
It's about 20 years and consists of 6 game versions per cycle.
GT1 was released 1997.
2017 there will be the beginning of the second product cycle of the GT series with GT7.

GT7 will have a livery editor with 8 predefined stripes and 22 manufacture logos to put on predefined positions on the car. Of course only selected cars will be able to have a livery change to prevent the players from becoming jaunty...

:D

Thanks for the nice picture anyway - it leaves me with a deep-drawn sigh...
 
Yea so much do I miss and not miss that game. Deep drawn sigh as well...loved Foxhound's Nurburgring addon. Was cool that you could do a Qualify starter on Nurburgring 24h, where you could "slice" part of the track at the last Turn on the GP section and start a qualify lap

Interior was awesome at high and Ultra settings, but the tracks were not so beautiful.
 
Those old PC sims are still great sims to drive on and the satisfaction of using the clutch just multiplies the fun factor :D

I managed to test the standard rims vs custom and although I were getting similer times, the standard rims I was going slightly quicker and felt easier to drive. Have you gauys tried that out yet?

I used -

Yellow Bird in stock form Engine limiter to 50%

BTR 75%

RGT 100%

all cars were in stock form on Sports Hard tyres. I tested them all with and without the custom rims and they all seem better to drive with the standard rims.
 
Pan, I'm sure that was something you did right, upgrade to a wider wheel IRL?

Thanks for the fantastic video links. I hadn't found those yet. Amazing rallying in that second one, and yeah, that shows the rear-end grip of these cars very well.

I have not upgraded to wider wheels except on the Beetle. I autocross 3 cars, two of which are mine and one is my father's (I talked him into beginning Autocrossing at the age of 70, and he loves it, we often double-enter and drive each other's cars, assuming the event is not full). I own a '68 Beetle with only 46hp. It is lowered 1" and has "limiter straps" like dune-buggies use to limit swing-axle movement so I can't tuck a wheel. It runs 185/65/15s in the front and 195/65/15s in the rear on 5.5" stock-look steel wheels that look like the 4.5" wheel the car came with. The suspension is only 1" lower than stock, but I do have a heavy rear sway bar and an adjustable front sway bar, so the car is very light, very nimble, laterally very stiff and rotates beautifully off-throttle at any speed (it will rotate at much lower speeds than the Porsches I drive). Super-managable and a real joy to drive. I also own and autocross a 1976 Porsche 912E, which is the "poor mans's 911" for that year (it followed the 914 and was a re-introduction of the 912 badge, but it was sold only in north-america and they only made 2099 of them total. But being a '76 it has a fully galvanized body, and so is reasonable to drive year-round, whereas the the more-desirable original 912 series rusted just as badly as old Beetles and should never ever be driven in salt). This car has a recent transmission and motor-rebuild and "upgrade" with a new cam, dual webbers, and slightly larger displacement, now coming in around 2.1 liters, but still pushing only around 150hp (good torque from 2k up though. It's not a blazing fast car, but it feels very quick). Feels a LOT better than the original 86hp though! The 912E actually runs the same size tire front and rear as the engine is quite a bit lighter than the 911's flat 6. I run 205/65/15s on it and it still runs at the original 912E ride-height, which is a full inch or so higher than the 911. Since is does double-duty as a daily-driver and autocross I'm not going to lower it. I did install an adjustable rear-sway bar which allows me to change the handling characteristics easily and quickly. This is also a very well-balanced car, driving nearly exactly like a 911. The 1980 911SC is my father's (pictured in my avatar as of this writing). It's a German "grey market" import, so it pushes around 200hp. It is 100% stock except for the usual engine fixes for the 3.0 liter motor. It runs 205/55/16s up front and 225/50/16s in the rear. Of the three I actually find the 911 the easiest to handle "on the edge" as it has enough power to really shift weight around. I can swap that thing from oversteer to understeer all day long just using the throttle. It's a beautifully tactile car to drive (although Porsche's of that era had downright terrible shifting transmissions even when working perfectly well. They are usually described as being "agricultural" in nature…) My "E" is actually harder for me to drive because the lighter engine means it won't oversteer off-throttle quite as easily as the 911, and I really rely on that in autocross. But in all other ways the "E" essentially handles and drives like a 911. Very tactile, lots of steering communication with the driver, and lots of drive-by-throttle when at the edge.

Sometime I'll make a vid of the snap-back I'm talking about. It's really driving me nuts, as my natural inclination in any rear-biased car is to let off the throttle (usually just slightly of course) if I'm getting understeer, and I'm sick and tired of doing that in-game and getting a totally different reaction than I do in real life… errrrrrr….
 
Last edited:
Coming back to this after the 1.06(?) update, and things do seem a bit better overall. I still seem to get too much snapback in some situations causing me to lose control where IRL I would be perfectly comfortable and in control (and could do the same thing probably 100 times in a day and never feel even the tiniest inkling of out-of-controllness). On the other hand, in some situations I KNOW I'm doing things that would likely kill me in real life, and am able to recover far too easily. But overall things are "somewhat better" I guess.

I think, in the end, the guys at PD building the physics model simply don't have sufficient experience in RR cars to really know how they feel and/or drive. I've noticed, for example, that if I try to drive the RRs like I would FRs (such as keeping a tire spun-up while gently drifting a corner), the car remains under control BETTER than if I'm just using the pendulum effect to allow the rear to step-out... Now, if you've driven 911's you know darn well that this is the LAST thing you want to do because you've already compromised the rear-grip by purposefully allowing the engine to *try* to come around on you, and you have deftly "caught it" at just the right slip and counter-steering angle and amount of throttle. If you then spin up a rear you are in HUGE TROUBLE as you will almost certainly spin the car at that point. So something remains wrong and I've given up completely on fixing it. Very much Looking forward to PCars though, and wondering how it will handle things.

I will say this though, one thing PD has always gotten right is the feel of weight-balance through the wheel. Man, when I release the gas and let that rear step out it is 90% accurate as to how it feels compared to a real Porsche 911 of the era. That tug of weight as the rear says "I wanna be in the front" is glorious. It's truly uncanny. (Then the PD version fails reality altogether and snaps-back and kills you... bummer)
 
Last edited:
Well, as a nail-in-the-coffin for GT6 RR physics, I've had to stop driving GT6 because it was screwing up my autocross ability. That says terrible things about GT6 physics, at least when it comes to RR cars. Note that this was not a problem I had with GT4, as that helped me considerably (and my daughter and my father too) with autocross skills. GT6, on the other hand, started making me "afraid" (not really afraid, it's a muscle-memory issue, not a mental issue) to lift-off as aggressively as I used to, and interfered with my early autocross events (I still did very well, it just wasn't nearly as fun!). So that's it for RR and even many MR cars in GT6 for me; if the game is actively detrimental to my real-world motorsport skills then it's bye bye baby bye bye...

(I think, when PD decided to include "drifting" as a category they screwed-up something in the RR physics to make the RR cars "drift" like FR cars or something, it's just totally frustrating...)
 
Last edited:
Well, as a nail-in-the-coffin for GT6 RR physics, I've had to stop driving GT6 because it was screwing up my autocross ability. That says terrible things about GT6 physics, at least when it comes to RR cars. Note that this was not a problem I had with GT4, as that helped me considerably (and my daughter and my father too) with autocross skills. GT6, on the other hand, started making me "afraid" (not really afraid, it's a muscle-memory issue, not a mental issue) to lift-off as aggressively as I used to, and interfered with my early autocross events (I still did very well, it just wasn't nearly as fun!). So that's it for RR and even many MR cars in GT6 for me; if the game is actively detrimental to my real-world motorsport skills then it's bye bye baby bye bye...

(I think, when PD decided to include "drifting" as a category they screwed-up something in the RR physics to make the RR cars "drift" like FR cars or something, it's just totally frustrating...)


Actually after doing some reading and watching a video about GT5 development it finally hit me that in making the game physics, the engineers needed to implement a balance for the DualShock controllers. I'm not saying a balance of competition between controller vs wheel, talking about overall. I started race sims back in 2005-2006 with GTR and GTR2 and used an Xbox 360 controller at first and it was downright impossible, but it was better then using a keyboard. After watching a video on when they were developing GT5
Kaz said something about the engineers/developers had to manipulate the game to suit the controller. It dawned on me recently that this might affect real life physics. I recently got Assetto Corsa (AC), and going back and forth between the two is like playing Battlefield 3 and ArmA 2. Now I'm not saying AC is the authority on physics but it aligns with others like the GTR series and rFActor etc. One thing I immediately noticed is the "scaling" of the game is way different, seems GT has a compressed feeling, which I've kinda felt from real life.

So maybe that explains that snap back feel is the physics being "tweaked" for controller usage (accessibility to the masses...posted about this recently in another thread and the discussion went wild) , and the fact that things feel compressed or a better explanation is things are "hurried" or sped up a bit.

AC vs GT6 F40 - Notice the wheel movement and degree of turning you need to turn between the two...GT hardly turn = drastic wheel turning / AC more turning of wheel is needed like in real life supporting 900 degree movement. End result, more precise and smooth steering:





IMHO I think the reason why the Ruf's are more difficult to drive in GT (and squirrel-ly) is because they require a more refined and precise steering then other cars, just like RR cars and namely the 911 in real life.
 
AC vs GT6 F40 - Notice the wheel movement and degree of turning you need to turn between the two...GT hardly turn = drastic wheel turning / AC more turning of wheel is needed like in real life supporting 900 degree movement. End result, more precise and smooth steering:

Keep in mind that in GT6 the cockpit steering wheel doesn't match what the "actual" steering wheel does. Driving with a 900 degree wheel, the cockpit wheel turns half of the real lock used if even that.
 
Here are two stock RUF's going for time attack at Suzuka Circuit. These are my replays btw.




The CTR has massive power, but it handles like garbage compared to the RGT.
 
Keep in mind that in GT6 the cockpit steering wheel doesn't match what the "actual" steering wheel does. Driving with a 900 degree wheel, the cockpit wheel turns half of the real lock used if even that.
Yup.

 
Note that while this thread is about Ruf and Tire physics, I'm complaining about a very specific snap-back issue, which differs from the traditionally understood "pendulum effect". In my case, the steering wheel motor literally snaps-back in the opposite direction extremely violently, causing loss of control, in a way which I've never experienced even once in the Real Life RR cars I drive. I'm not sure if it's improperly modeled steering-angle or what (I often go all the way to opposite-lock in certain autocross events if the course layout allows it to be an advantage, such as in decreasing radius sweepers, or when entering a very tight turn after any long high-speed sweeper so as to avoid losing momentum, or when doing a "Scandinavian flick" to get the rear to rotate around a single-cone 180degree turn). I've felt the RL pendulum effect many times (very nearly lost the tail of the 912E this year in a very long high-speed slalom). I've never once had a steering-wheel grab and jerk back in the opposite direction like what is happening in GT6. IRL that same type of maneuver is graceful and managable: it's not a battle, but a dance - Not rugby, but ballet. If you see what I mean. But this may or may not be related to any other handling bugaboos others are seeing...
 
My buddies reply when I would tell him it didn't work: "Your damn game is broken".

LOL

I don't think the game is broken, maybe I need to tweak more again and again to find that sweet spot,

No.

If someone who is an expert with a particular car tells you to make specific changes in the cars geometry on a game and you don't get the results then the game is broken. Either that or reality is broken. I'm pretty sure its the game as every single car I have driven in reality and then tried in the game doesn't even drive remotely similar.

Anyone who has experience of 911's will tell you that there is a specific way to drive these cars fast. They are tail heavy and thus nose light, so will induce push on understeer on corner entry, so to counter act this you must trail brake into the corner to transfer as much weight onto the front wheels as possible as you steer in. Once you have the car balanced and as you approach the apex you build some throttle in and use the massive, and I mean MASSIVE rear traction, allowed by having so much weight over the normally huge rear tyres, to accelerate out of the corner, occasionally with a slight wiggle of oversteer from the pendulum effect.

GT6 has got none of that right.
 
No.

If someone who is an expert with a particular car tells you to make specific changes in the cars geometry on a game and you don't get the results then the game is broken. Either that or reality is broken. I'm pretty sure its the game as every single car I have driven in reality and then tried in the game doesn't even drive remotely similar.

Anyone who has experience of 911's will tell you that there is a specific way to drive these cars fast. They are tail heavy and thus nose light, so will induce push on understeer on corner entry, so to counter act this you must trail brake into the corner to transfer as much weight onto the front wheels as possible as you steer in. Once you have the car balanced and as you approach the apex you build some throttle in and use the massive, and I mean MASSIVE rear traction, allowed by having so much weight over the normally huge rear tyres, to accelerate out of the corner, occasionally with a slight wiggle of oversteer from the pendulum effect.

GT6 has got none of that right.

Yeah, completely agreed. I've given up on the GT series at this point completely and am hoping that other franchises take over and build the kind of product I want. I'm overall more interested in the cars than in the motorsports: In the feel and the sound and the "essence" of the different vehicles, and the GT series really stood out in that regard for years. Nothing else I've tried really captures it quite the same way. But it's absurd that a game two generations old (GT4), running on vastly inferior hardware had cars with handling characteristics much closer to my real-life equivalents than GT6 does.

There is simply something horribly, terribly, wrong with GT6 physics, at least when it comes to these RR cars which I know well (I guess I can't judge the cars I'm unfamiliar with, but if they get these cars so far off, then can we really trust anything else?). It isn't just RUFs, and it isn't just about the tires. PD has something fundamentally and completely broken in their physics model.
 
Pan, not sure if you mentioned it, but have you tried Assetto Corsa or any other PC sims? They have a good thing going there. I've actually been playing more and more of AC because of these non-realistic issues. That and it support mods, meaning all kinds of content is coming.
 
Pan, not sure if you mentioned it, but have you tried Assetto Corsa or any other PC sims? They have a good thing going there. I've actually been playing more and more of AC because of these non-realistic issues. That and it support mods, meaning all kinds of content is coming.

I do have Assetto Corsa and have played many other sim racers over time, but since most of them have such limited cars, and focus so heavily on motorsports rather than on the cars themselves, I've so far failed to find anything which really matches my tastes. I guess if you took the track variety from GT4 and Dirt 2, the physics of LFS I suppose, the "fun factor" of Dirt 2, the graphical quality of GT6 (but without the compromised AA and overdone "HDR"), and a good balance of cars from all eras and you would have what I'm really looking for. There a lots of games that do some things right, but nothing that really hits the nail on the head for me so far. As for Corsa, I just haven't had time to get into it yet. I'm sure I'll give it a good try at some point.
 
So every once in a while I boot-up GT6, install the updates, and give it a try again. This time around I notice that they've changed the Rear Engine car physics *massively*. I guess I would say that it is "better overall", because the snap-back is mostly gone from what I can tell. BUT it appears that, instead of fixing the underlying physics problem, they've simply added in a huge "fudge factor". Where the back of the Yellowbird (for example) used to slide out OK, and tug at the wheel very much like a real Porsche of the same era (but then snap-back inappropriately - the source of many a complaint), this pretty much no longer happens. I don't have the "snapback" issue anymore, which is good, but I think it might only be because the rear no longer wants to step-out off-throttle like it should in the first place. I seem to recall a similar "progression" in GT5, where the initial "preview" physics were very, very good and incredibly challenging except for some of the rear-biased cars, which would do insane things like lift the rear and slide it around on-throttle in big sweepers on, say, HSR. To "fix" this they then pretty much borked, or maybe nerfed, the rear-biased cars and made them way to EASY to drive. It was frustrating as heck. And, as far as I can tell, they've simply done something similar again. I can now go out in the YB on the Nurb and do totally stupid things like completely lift the throttle on corner entry at like 120mph and nothing bad happens. Should I be able to lift a little? And by that I mean a "blip" (think feathering the throttle a single time, or ease off say, 10% or less)? Sure. Should I be able to get the rear a little bit out, let it rotate just a titch, and then apply throttle again? Yes. Should I need to counter-steer? Hopefully just a little, because otherwise it means I got off-throttle too much in the first place, but if I catch it soon enough I might be able to save it. Should I be able to lift my foot completely off the throttle and not die a horrible firey death as my car rams rear-first into the barrier? Heck NO! Also, a couple times I manged to get her completely sideways on-throttle in 2nd gear, and then get the front to come back around... That's so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so massively wrong I can't even begin to explain it... That's appropriate for, say, an (AWD) Subaru, but totally and completely wrong for the YB or any classic-era Porsche.

I have been playing Assetto quite a bit recently, and it's FAR FAR better in terms of the physics comparing YB to YB in both games (and comparing both game to RL experience in Porsches of the same era). It's got such a limited selection of tracks and cars that it might not hold my interest. But if you're looking for something that more accurately models how these cars should drive you might try Assetto if you get the chance.

If you want to watch a great video of even older Porsche 911s in action check this out:



The Porsche action starts around 3:20 into the video. Chris has a great comment about these supposedly "deathtrap" cars being "one of the most predictable cars he's ever driven." (They ARE incredibly predictable and wonderful handling-cars, you simply have to know, and practice, a different technique. All those "deathtrap" comments you used to hear about them came from idiots who never bothered to learn how to drive properly...)

Watch the cornering. See how many of the drivers let the rear rotate a bit, corner after corner after corner after corner? That's the glorious beauty of this chassis and layout. It's a huge part of what makes them so special to drive. And that's what PD NEEDS to get right, and which they haven't gotten right since GT4...
 
Last edited:
Auto Motor Und Sport + Sport Auto 1988 RUF CTR Yellowbird Replica

Tuned to Replicate RUF CTR Yellowbird
Comfort Medium




CAR : RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
Tire : Comfort Medium


Specs 40/60 Distribution - BASE ( Real life )
Horsepower: 462 HP / 469 PS at 6000 RPM
Torque : 407.9 ft-lb at 5000 RPM
Power Limiter at : 100%
Weight: 1222 kg
Ballast : 153 kg
Ballast Position : 18
Weight Distribution : 40 / 60
Performance Points: 522

Specs 38/62 Distribution
Horsepower: 462 HP / 469 PS at 6000 RPM
Torque : 407.9 ft-lb at 5000 RPM
Power Limiter at : 100%
Weight: 1222 kg
Ballast : 153 kg
Ballast Position : 37
Weight Distribution : 38 / 62
Performance Points: 522

Specs 37/63 Distribution
Horsepower: 462 HP / 469 PS at 6000 RPM
Torque : 407.9 ft-lb at 5000 RPM
Power Limiter at : 100%
Weight: 1222 kg
Ballast : 153 kg
Ballast Position : 46
Weight Distribution : 37 / 63
Performance Points: 522


GT AUTO
NO Oil change
Improve Body Rigidity ( INSTALLED ) -MANDATORY
Wheels : Stock
Car Paint : Giallo Modena





Tuning Parts Installed :
Racing Exhaust
Fully Customizable Suspension
Full Customizable Dog Clutch Transmission
Weight Reduction Stage 3



Suspension - RUF Tuned Torsion Bar & Bilstein Damper

Front, Rear
Ride Height: 118 128
Spring Rate: 5.10 7.14
Dampers (Compression): 7 4
Dampers (Extension): 4 8
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 3
Camber Angle: 1.0 2.0
Toe Angle: -0.10 0.05

Alternative Alignment :
Camber Angle: 1.5 2.5
Toe Angle: -0.10 0.20




DOG CLUTCH TRANSMISSION - RUF CTR 5 Speed

Install all power parts
Set Default
Use Default Final
Set Auto Max Speed at 400kmh / 249mph
Adjust each gear :
1st 2.786
2nd 1.600
3rd 1.115
4th 0.828
5th 0.625
6th 0.596 - Ignore for authenticity
Set Final 4.000, OPTIONAL 3.777 Corrected Final to get 211 MPH at 7000RPM


LSD 80% Lock - BASE
Initial Torque : 20
Acceleration Sensitivity: 48
Braking Sensitivity: 24


LSD 80% Lock - Higher Preload - Optional
Initial Torque : 24
Acceleration Sensitivity: 48
Braking Sensitivity: 24



Brake Balance:
5/5 ( personal BB) or for ABS 0 wheel : 4/4, for ABS 1 - feel free to use your preferred brake balance.

Recommended setting for DS3 user :

Steering sensitivity at +1 or +2, all aids off, except ABS 1 ( if not comfortable with ABS 0 ) with 5/5 brake balance as starting point.


Notes :


The RUF CTR Yellow Bird is a legendary tuned Porsche that breaks top speed record for production cars back in the late '80s. Alois Ruf had a different goal than most other Porsche tuner back in the day. He chose to go for less drag, more top speed, lightweight but still offers great handling for a rear engined Porsche. Using non turbo body 930, he developed the engine and twin turbo kit to produce over 469 PS for a low 1.1 Bar of boost, Alois Rud admitted that on the CTR ‘we use very big horses in Pfaffenhausen’, which means 469PS was a modest statement.. The boost level was adjustable up to 1.2 Bar, producing more than 500PS based on Yellow Bird owner reports. 29 examples were built from RUF VIN chassis ( not conversion ), while there are many more CTR built from converted Porsche ( still unconfirmed )

This replica is based on the Auto Motor Und Sport and Sport Auto 1988 Magazine reviews. Test weight was at 1222kg, with several sets of weight distribution included, from 40/60 to 37/63. Some RUF technical books and the door plate on the car itself listed the weight with distribution at 40/60. Alois Ruf also mentioned that he went a great length to improve the balance by moving components from rear to front when possible ( front oil coolers ) and aim for 40/60 distribution. Recent articles mentioned 38/62, more likely from CTR with driver onboard and built from Porsche 930 conversion. FM5 uses 37/63 distribution, which might be plausible if taken from later year Porsche 930 conversion.

Power is set at 462 HP or 469 PS ( stock ), no oil change with body rigidity improvement mandatory as the real CTR has full roll cage.
Suspension of RUF CTR uses torsion bars and Bilstein Damper with 22mm front stabilizer bar and 20mm rear stabilizer bar, specially tuned by RUF extensively at Austrian race tracks Osterreichring and Salzburgring.
The torsion bar rate value has not been confirmed and the values are too low anyway ( can't be reached in GT6 )
I decided to use real life setup already proven at the track.
The spring rate used in this replica is based on Eibach Race Springs at 50 N/mm and 70 N/mm front/rear. The setup was used in real life on 930 Turbo with 1040 dry weight built for Nordschleife track/street ( 500+PS )
Damper, ARB has been tuned to support the weight distribution and spring rate, while camber and toe uses street/mild track Porsche 930 alignment.

The MN P911 RUF CTR tested by Sport Auto has 80% lock LSD, which also replicated with medium preload LSD. RUF offers lower lock 60% LSD as standard fitment on each RUF CTR and BTR sold to the public with 80% lock used on the 1st CTR as option. The high lock LSD might be too much for the usual customer who drive their car daily.

Gearing has been corrected with RUF gear set as offered in their brochure. The 5 speed uses 4.000 final, and the 6th gear in GT6 should not be used. I have also provided optional final at 3.777 to replicate the real life test result at 211mph @7000 RPM ( redline )

The RUF CTR was tuned and tested at Tsukuba, Red Bull Ring, Midfield and Spa. The real life record at Tsukuba in Best Motoring was 1:06.12. Using 38/62 distribution, oil changed build ( 463HP using limiter ), 1222kg, 3.777 Final, the RUF managed 1:05.808 lap on CM tire.

Updated : Changed 40/60 spec as base based on test review against Assetto Corsa and real life data. Added optional LSD with higher preload and alternative alignment with higher camber and more rear toe in.



Special Review by @Lewis_Hamilton driving both GT6 version replica and Assetto Corsa and 1080/60 fps video of the lap at Spa on both GT6 replica and Assetto Corsa Yellow Bird :

Ok, so I've ran some laps of the 38/62 weight distribution set up in GT6, and then hopped on to AC (both games running at the same time). Tried some laps at default LSD (40%), and at 80%. There's also the option for 60% which I haven't tried.

Initial impressions are that GT6 is both too slippery and grippy at the same time, if that makes any sense whatsoever, and I'm wondering how much of this comes down to GT6's track grip settings, broken camber physics and pandering to the casual players. Between the two games, I matched the same time of day, ambient temps and weather conditions (50% GT6 / mid-heavy cloud cover AC), and in AC I set the track to optimum conditions - which is the equivalent of a whole field of cars that have rubbered in the track for many laps. The reason why I've picked this rather than a none rubbered in track that's slick and slippery is because the YB in AC would be even slower. Interestingly, the look of the lighting/atmosphere in both is very similar.

As for the car:
In GT6 with 38/62 WD, the back end steps out both more frequently, easily and by much greater angles, but at the same time, it is still holding higher cornering speeds and is easy to recover, not once did I spin or go flying off the track. In AC, both with 40% and 80% LSD, the car feels more stable/planted but has lower cornering speed ability. 80% feels too safe to me however. The biggest difference is that in AC, you only need about half of the momentum of the weight shifting around at the rear in order to put the car in a situation where it is impossible to save and you end up facing the wrong way, no matter how quickly you react, what you do with the pedals or steering wheel. If you try and shift the weight around quickly, it's going to spin every time, where in GT6 it turns into an angled drift which you can save.

Another thing I noticed is that there is more wheel spin in AC - coming out of any corner in 2nd gear - despite GT6 being on the 2nd least grippy set of tyres. To match AC in this regard and cornering speeds, I think you would have to go down to CH tyres. In my opinion the problem is when you do that on GT6, it starts to feel like you're driving in the wet, you just don't have that feeling of connection with the road. Trying to match what I was doing in GT6 either resulted in going wide or the rear coming around despite initially being at much lower slip angles than GT6, but I have always complained about this issue for lord knows how many years, GT6 is just too forgiving and allows you to be far too aggressive, that's just how the physics are. Over all, lap times in GT6 were 4-5 seconds quicker around Spa. I'd test around Tsukuba but I don't think the Tsukuba that's been modded by whoever in AC is of high enough quality, at least Spa is fully modeled and laser scanned by Kunos.

I'm going to give the 40/60 WD set up a go now, I reckon that will help match the two games closer together, so that there's less weight on the rear causing more wheel spin in 2nd, and so that the rear isn't swinging around so wildly and easily. Braking without ABS on both is pretty similar, you can feel the bite and lock up much better in AC (a result of the game physics and not the cars), but importantly the actual braking distances and point of lock up is closely matched.

So after the first test, I think CH tyres in GT6 will get the games to perform similar laps times and cornering speeds, but I don't think they'd be anything you could do to match the feeling you have in AC of driving a real car simply because it is much more advanced and has a lot more grunt to pull it off (hardware wise).

Please don't think I am criticizing your replica, by GT6 standards it feels great and you've done a great job, it's GT's physics that are letting it down rather than the car itself. If I drive in GT6 the same way I have to in AC then both feel more similar, it's when you come to pushing lap times that GT exposes it's flaws. I'll give you some more feedback on the other 40/60 WD and will probably try "stock" 43/57 as well.



Good news! It's a new Dacia Sandero!

Ok so I've tried out the 40/60 distribution and also bumped up the rear BB to 6. Did about 15 laps on GT6 and then jumped into AC, increased the tyre pressure but dropped it down to "Green" track settings (about medium grip out of all the options, takes a while for the track to come in). Within 5 laps I was just 5 hundredths off my lap time in GT6.

The 40/60 WD helps to match the AC versions corner entry understeer, tyre slip in 2nd gear and cornering speeds. There were differences here and there, and I also find it harder to get the line right in AC (need to fiddle with controller settings), but over all, the lap times are nearly identical. In GT6 I also had a couple of rear end snapping and off track moments like I did in AC when trying to drive both the same way. GT6's version still has a looser rear end, and it's still easier to regain control, but the behaviour of the car is much closer. Now if only GT had a tyre model, I bet you could get them to react very similar indeed, with the main differences being how the cars feel to drive due to the different physics engines.

I've saved a replay on each game. Driving style and lines will probably look quite different, but the particular lap replays I saved had a mere 0.03 difference.


I tested with the 4.000 final drive, the gearing was pretty much spot on so I didn't fiddle with it. I stuck with CM tyres, increasing the tyre pressure and ambient temp by 2 celsius in AC helped to make the car faster in AC. I tried to drive both the same, I fell behind in GT6 after Eau Rouge because the rear was sliding, but managed to catch up the gap at Bruxelles with a more aggressive exit that only GT6 would allow, from there on, both laps are almost identical, even the gear changes. I tried to keep the upshift time equal in GT6, as the YB in GT6 can upshift instantly, whereas in AC the game simulates this better. Basically I let go of the throttle for the same amount of time that I would in my real life car when "giving it the beans".

Though I agree that adding more camber would have helped adjust the lap time, I think it would have made the car too slippery, GT6 already feels like it's on ice when you've just come from AC, there is so much difference in the feeling even if both cars are doing the same thing. Anyway here's the video, split screen 1080p/60.






 

Thanks. That tune looks very interesting. I'll have to find time to give it a try. I've also gone back to the Alpine 1600 a few times and tried to get it to drive like an RR car should (of course, I have no RL experience in one of those, so I can only go by how RR cars handle in general, and also based on reviews and videos of the cars I find online). PD has the default weight in the Alpine set at 50/50... I've never gotten anything that feels all that convincing to me, but maybe with these updated physics I can find something. Anyway, I think that PD either doesn't care, or doesn't understand, how these machines handle and how they are driven. It's a shame, since they really did have it pretty darn close in GT4.
 
Last edited:
Old thread but I couldn't help noticing here, it appears GT5 has the right rear track width, just pause the video

So how could they get it so wrong in GT6 if GT5 had it right? All they did was port the cars over? It's Bizzare to say the least. What makes me sad is they haven't done anything about this glaring fault in years.

Much like the other faults in the game, such as camber also not being fixed.
 
Back