US v UK and the ASpec, MA70 Supra Hard-Tuned tips

  • Thread starter 2thDr
  • 33 comments
  • 2,568 views
2

2thDr

38
United States
Clarksville, TN
Anybody have a definite way to win the ASpec? I have won it before, yet it has been eluding me with almost every car I try. I have skipped qualify, qualified, drove under control, etc...

Also, I started this most recent tear with the MA70 Supra and am having a hard time winning the Hard-tuned series. I have since moved on, yet I still want to know if anyone has won that series with this car and what kind of settings/parts have helped you to do so.

Thanks
 
There's no definite way to win a prize car. You just have to keep trying. Usually doing other races first or changing the car you drive helps, but it doesn't guarantee 100%.

About the MA70 Supra and the Hard-Tuned, I think you can win. Although I've never personally tried it, the car should have enough power to win, and its bad handling characteristics should easily be eliminated by correct tuning. I'm clueless at tuning, so other members may help you with that. In the meantime, keep practicing 👍 Good luck!
 
My records indicate I won the Hard-Tuned series in an MA70 once, "impurely". (Needed AI to lose points).

I won 34 to 28. My online records don't indicate my race results, nor which of the two fields I beat (though I'd guess it was the Supra one; the NSX field tends to perform more consistently). They do indicate that to practice I won the UKvsJP series in the tuned MA70, winning impurely again, 35 to 24.

Hmm. Searching some more, I once nearly swept the series in the car.
Winning 45to24, and missing the sweep only by qualifying only 5th at GVii.

And another time I won 45to23, with so-so qualifying (shown as q25121). Neither time did I indicate the field I raced against.

I would have used max parts and min weight.

But I never simply slam the ride height and stiffen the suspension.

Though...
http://www.geocities.com/gt2toxs/gt/diary/1999-10-01.html
(race-mod win at GV300) indicates I did slam the ride height and use mostly stock settings there. But it doesn't go down very low. Extremely low front camber looks strange. Front tire-wear shouldn't have been an issue? I'm guessing a typo, actually, sorry. And I would use more camber on a tuned version, anyway.

Later for powerful FR cars I began using +2 stiffer dampers at one end. Rear, I believe.

http://www.geocities.com/gt2toxs/gt/diary/2001-04-01.html
tuned "Fairlady" at All-Night II doesn't really demonstrate anything interesting, tuning-wise.

Nor, really...
http://www.geocities.com/gt2toxs/gt/diary/2000-10-29.html
(tuned Cerbera winning GV300). Though eventually I did nearly always use +5 or +10 rear ride-height for nearly all tuned cars.
 
2thDr
Anybody have a definite way to win the ASpec? I have won it before, yet it has been eluding me with almost every car I try. I have skipped qualify, qualified, drove under control, etc...
Click to expand...

There's no magic formula...cars in GT are won randomly--some folks will tell you that it's possible to win a certain car if you do this or that, but this is not true.

Also, I started this most recent tear with the MA70 Supra and am having a hard time winning the Hard-tuned series. I have since moved on, yet I still want to know if anyone has won that series with this car and what kind of settings/parts have helped you to do so.

Thanks
Click to expand...

MA70s are extremely tail-happy once their power gets raised, especially in GT1. It's totally possible to win using an MA70, but you'll need lots of practice to keep it under control. I can't remember what settings I used for my MA70 when I raced it, and I personally never used an MA70 in the Hard Tuned races, but I believe it's possible to win if you're really good and persistent.

For MA70 woes, I probably:


1. lowered the rear-end

2. installed softer tires in the rear, keeping harder ones up front so the Supra would be more prone towards understeer.

3. used softer springs in the rear....lower dampers & stabilizers perhaps.

4. It helped A LOT when I switched from digital racing (buttons) to analog sticks...gas & brakes are much easier to control via analog in my opinion, tho not everyone agrees. I literally went from spinning out at every corner in my Camaro to smoothly braking in, steering, and accelerating out like a pro once I switched to analog.

I used a Viper GTS with maximum weight reductions when I won the Hard Tuned series the first time. Once I got the hang of it, I found the Viper simply has more cornering prowess than the MA70 Supra, and is also easier to control...but that's just me. :D
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the help. I am not sure how you play the game, but I have a routine of working cars through normal then hard tuned to see if they can win those, then i race mod. I have been close with the MA70 and know that with some more tuning I will get it, and with some more attempts at us uk I know i'll win the aspec...currently on the corvette gs, just won the normal this morning with it and bought some parts now to start either the hard tuned or take a stab at us uk without race mod. Cheers!
 
2thDr
Thanks for the help. I am not sure how you play the game, but I have a routine of working cars through normal then hard tuned to see if they can win those, then i race mod. I have been close with the MA70 and know that with some more tuning I will get it, and with some more attempts at us uk I know i'll win the aspec...currently on the corvette gs, just won the normal this morning with it and bought some parts now to start either the hard tuned or take a stab at us uk without race mod. Cheers!
Click to expand...

That's cool. I like your system...I also like getting to "know" a car thru several different scenarios. 👍

But as you know, the Hard Tuned races are definitely some of the hardest. It took awhile before I finally mastered these...mostly because I wasn't so good with reversed tracks at the time.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't the turbo lag have caused a problem, though? Lowering the turbo boost level would have helped, but apparently all the answers have been given here.
 
Turbo lag only kicks in at the start, or after you spun, there's little effect of the lag when you're actually driving. So I don't think it's a huge problem. I would've used max boost level myself.

Nice to see you back in the ol' GT1 section Parnelli! We've been missing you here :D
 
LeGeNd-1
Turbo lag only kicks in at the start, or after you spun, there's little effect of the lag when you're actually driving. So I don't think it's a huge problem. I would've used max boost level myself.
Click to expand...

yup. Good ol' lag. I've said many times they shoulda kept lag real like it is in GT1 instead of downplaying it in later games. It seems more prevalent in GT4, though. 👍

Nice to see you back in the ol' GT1 section Parnelli! We've been missing you here :D
Click to expand...

I appreciate that. My old computer was via dial-up and after awhile it wouldn't even let me on Gt Planet. So for a few months I was actually going to the library or using my gf's computer just to post here.
 
Last edited:
Parnelli Bone
yup. Good ol' lag. I've said many times they shoulda kept lag real like it is in GT1 instead of downplaying it in later games. It seems more prevalent in GT4, though. 👍.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I miss having it in GT2. When I first played GT2 after years of playing GT1, I can't help noticing how unrealistic it is for a car with Stage 4 turbo to be able to directly get on the power after you spun or at the start. The lag in GT1 makes very close racing, especially if you spun while leading. I can't tell you how many times I have cursed the turbo lag in the past, those few agonising seconds in the low rpms feels like ages.

Wonder if they will bring it back completely in GT5?
 
LeGeNd-1
Yeah, I miss having it in GT2. When I first played GT2 after years of playing GT1, I can't help noticing how unrealistic it is for a car with Stage 4 turbo to be able to directly get on the power after you spun or at the start. The lag in GT1 makes very close racing, especially if you spun while leading. I can't tell you how many times I have cursed the turbo lag in the past, those few agonising seconds in the low rpms feels like ages.

Wonder if they will bring it back completely in GT5?
Click to expand...

...us serious gamers can only hope, right? I doubt lag will ever be as present like in GT1, though.
 
Everyone knows that in 4WD and FR cars in [size=+1]GT1[/size] you can use the handbrake to reduce the impact of turbo lag when restarting after a spin, right? Engaging the handbrake appears to force the clutch out (pedal in/clutch out), allowing the engine to build up revs faster.

I can't believe the modeled turbo lag is realistic. If it is, there must be a way in real life cars to disengage the turbos when starting. (Plus you do have explicit clutch control in real life).
 
2thDr
Thanks for the help. I am not sure how you play the game, but I have a routine of working cars through normal then hard tuned to see if they can win those, then i race mod.
Click to expand...
Did you win the Normal Series with the MA70??? :nervous:
 
I haven't looked on Youtube enough to know if that turbo-lag is real as it gets or not for high-powered spools. I'm just assuming it is; otherwise, why would PD make the lag last so long? Guess I'll do some youtube exploring this afternoon.
 
Last edited:
AFAICT, the turbo lag is implemented in [size=+1]GT1[/size] by merely using punitive torque/power curves. I claim the severe lack of low speed torque must be unrealistically excessive; such a phenomenon would be difficult to tolerate. And we do know that real road cars with turbos do not use them full-time, but only under certain conditions. They can be engaged after the car is moving. See also "ALS" (Anti-Lag Systems).

You can moderate the observed in-game effect of "turbo lag" by setting an extremely low first gear. It's not clear to me whether a low gear would in real life actually do that. (Similarly I'm not sure whether clutch-out/pop would help either).
 
Well I went and typed in "turbo lag" over at youtube hoping to find some clips of IMSA racing or some other super-high powered vehicles but so far nothing relevant has come to my attention. I'll keep looking though.
 
Last edited:
The extremely long lag only occurs with Stage 3/4 turbos, it's minimal with Stage 1/2 (i.e. still within a tolerable range). I doubt it if road cars or even race cars (dragsters excluded) has turbos as big as Stage 3/4. If they did, however, they may just do some remapping on the torque curves so there's still some decent torque at low rpms. Then again, I might be wrong as I have little experience with real life race cars.
 
A question is whether by "stage 4" they really mean "4 turbos feeding one another", and how real or fictional that scenario is. Early 1980's Formula One engines were 1.5L turbocharged, and apparently generated close to 1500bhp, useable in circuit racing. If I read correctly, they were not more than a two-stage turbo-charging process, however.

The concept of a "four-stage turbocharger" may be a fictional creation of the [size=+1]GT1[/size] creators, or we may be misinterpreting their terminology. (I.e. perhaps it's just the "fourth stage" of turbo installation in the car--analogous to 3rd stage weight reduction). Or perhaps such devices are used in real-life max-speed capacity class tests. For max-speed tests, turbo-lag which actually debilitated low-speed acceleration would not be an issue.

Edit...
FWIW, wikipedia does have relevant articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-turbo

These suggest "chained" (my term) turbochargers do exist, mostly in diesel (tractor) racing. (pulling?) A general web search confirms that.

Strangely, most "twin-turbo" designs apparently function to reduce turbo-lag.

So, my questions remain.
 
No I did not win the normal series with the MA70, it was the first car I bought and I am pretty sure it could not keep up with the pack, esp. the nsx...but, after I opened the game up a little more and tried to win the hard-tuned series I came close, yet could not get my settings right. I knew that correctly tuned it could win, and it did, I used the settings posted and modified them a little to fit my style of driving. I won on the third try after finishing 2nd twice...so thanks for the settings tips. I had my ride height too high and my spring settings, brakes, and damper settings were pretty different also. I also only use the 4 spec turbo on the high speed ring and the 3 on the rest, the rear wheels have no grip and the car wants to really spin out when taking the hairpins on autumn ring and gv...so, with lower power and high gearing of 2nd and 3rd gear, then it helps in not spinning out and still drifting/getting some grip on exit. I try all of the cars on normal, and if they are getting smoked, then I just move on. Thanks again.
 
SportWagon
A question is whether by "stage 4" they really mean "4 turbos feeding one another", and how real or fictional that scenario is. Early 1980's Formula One engines were 1.5L turbocharged, and apparently generated close to 1500bhp, useable in circuit racing. If I read correctly, they were not more than a two-stage turbo-charging process, however.

The concept of a "four-stage turbocharger" may be a fictional creation of the [size=+1]GT1[/size] creators, or we may be misinterpreting their terminology. (I.e. perhaps it's just the "fourth stage" of turbo installation in the car--analogous to 3rd stage weight reduction). Or perhaps such devices are used in real-life max-speed capacity class tests. For max-speed tests, turbo-lag which actually debilitated low-speed acceleration would not be an issue.

Edit...
FWIW, wikipedia does have relevant articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-turbo

These suggest "chained" (my term) turbochargers do exist, mostly in diesel (tractor) racing. (pulling?) A general web search confirms that.

Strangely, most "twin-turbo" designs apparently function to reduce turbo-lag.

So, my questions remain.
Click to expand...

You're so intelligent. Thanks for digging all this up, man.
 
2thDr
No I did not win the normal series with the MA70, it was the first car I bought and I am pretty sure it could not keep up with the pack, esp. the nsx...but, after I opened the game up a little more and tried to win the hard-tuned series I came close, yet could not get my settings right. I knew that correctly tuned it could win, and it did, I used the settings posted and modified them a little to fit my style of driving. I won on the third try after finishing 2nd twice...so thanks for the settings tips. I had my ride height too high and my spring settings, brakes, and damper settings were pretty different also. I also only use the 4 spec turbo on the high speed ring and the 3 on the rest, the rear wheels have no grip and the car wants to really spin out when taking the hairpins on autumn ring and gv...so, with lower power and high gearing of 2nd and 3rd gear, then it helps in not spinning out and still drifting/getting some grip on exit. I try all of the cars on normal, and if they are getting smoked, then I just move on. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. The Hard Tuned races are definitely the toughest. It took me awhile before I won them, mostly because I wasn't as good with reversed tracks as I was with normal-direction ones.
 
Last edited:
I think the Stages meant the size, that is, the higher the Stage the bigger the turbo, hence the bigger turbo lag. But we'll never know....
 
Actually, towards the end of that wiki article it explains how in a "stage 2" turbo system, one turbo is used to spool up a 2nd turbo, so what we're thinking is that with a stage 3 or 4 system, there are 3 or 4 turbos spooling each other, which would definitely account for the mad turbo lag in GT1.

I also figure that the GT1 boost gauge represents how much your engine is relying on a turbo to get things going: with a setting of "1", the engine has more natural compression and isn't relying on the turbo as much, but if the setting is maxed to "7", it is now relying on that turbo before anything gets done.

Of course, in real life, you wouldn't find such a system on GT-class racing cars like the Supra even if it's high-powered. In that wiki article, it talks about how these multiple-turbine systems are used in large diesel applications like "tractor pulls" and such. So in later games (GT2 GT3 GT4) perhaps the different stages simply mean BIGGER turbos systems, which would create more lag but not nearly as much lag as you'd find in a system that's using several turbos spooling each other.

In GT4, when you're at the parts shop looking at the different systems you can buy, they actually show a picture of the components found in all 4 different systems. The Stage 1 system shows a picture of a simple turbine housing.

The Stage 2 looks slightly bigger. In the info, it tells us that with a Stage 2 system "the fuel pump, management computer, injectors, and other parts are replaced."

In a stage 3, there is an additional component pictured along with the turbine housing, I'm not sure what it's supposed to be, but I'm guessing it's the wastegate. Anyways, the implication is that the system is now even bigger. The info for this system says "the related parts are again replaced to get the most out of the turbo. The cam(s) are also replaced". I'm assuming we've got a stronger fuel pump, injectors, and re-mapped computer, stronger valve springs, different pistons & rings.....exhaust manifold, but the info says nothing about this.

In a stage 4 system, there is now a picture of something that looks like a hairdryer along with the turbine housing. There are also a couple other parts I'm not sure what they're supposed to be...there's one that looks like the grate on a waffle iron, and also what looks to be a rubber or braided-metal hose. The info goes on vaguely about more parts being replaced, and the cam is given a "higher profile".
 
Last edited:
Right. Thanks for the explanation 👍 I'm not so much of a mechanic so I can only guess about technical stuff. Weird thing is your explanations are the most easy to understand Parnelli, it's very.....down to earth :). That's exactly the reason I hate Wiki, too complicated :ouch:.
 
LeGeNd-1
Right. Thanks for the explanation 👍 I'm not so much of a mechanic so I can only guess about technical stuff. Weird thing is your explanations are the most easy to understand Parnelli, it's very.....down to earth :). That's exactly the reason I hate Wiki, too complicated :ouch:.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. I work on cars at one of my jobs, but we're talking oil changes, tire rotations, belt & brake replacements, etc....I've never worked on a high-profile turbo, nor has any of the more advanced folks in my shop. Hell, we don't do any work on anything that's not stock, matter of fact..we're not a specialty shop. But I could ask some of the guys I work with what they think. I'm sure they'll have an opinion.

Wiki is a bunch of subscribers adding info to a page as time goes on. If one person adds something to the page that doesn't seem truthful, they put a "citation needed" marker on it so others can verify the truth. In theory, Wiki is therefore like a bunch of knowledgeable people sitting in a room full of encyclopedias and manuals checking up on each other to make sure everything goes right. Most of the time it works; but still, Wiki is not 100% in my opinion.

On pages with more obscure info (like if someone is writing about a very rare plant for instance) there's the possibility nobody will check up on the page, and now we could have some false info. But on pages like "Chevrolet Corvette", where there are tons of people who know the truth, us readers can sit there and take what's written as the truth. 💡
 
Last edited:
That's right, the people who contribute to Wiki are so much more knowledgeable than us that, most of the times I can't understand half of what the articles are saying. I'm sure I will understand more and more as I go to uni in a few more years, but like I said, if you're a primary school kid and your teacher gave you a research project, don't bother researching at Wiki because it will be way too advanced for you to understand.
 
I had always assumed [size=+1]GT[/size] games did not model turbocharging directly, but drove their model directly off an algebraically defined torque curve, but now I think about it, they do show a turbo boost gauge, so perhaps turbine pressure is used directly in the model.
 
Stages for turbos in the GT game are simply a number to indicate a power output and lag range, Stage 4 does not mean you have 4 turbos bolted to the engine.
Read the description in the parts menu.
Stage 1 : small turbo with minimal lag.
Stage 2 : bigger turbo than stage 1,more power than stage one with more lag than 1
Stage 3 : bigger turbo than stage 2,more power than stage two with more lag than 2
Stage 4. the big high power turbo, big turbine requires more inertia to spool up to sped, thus the big lag.

A twin turbo system uses two turbos in unison, a small turbo to mimimise lag at low rpm. At higher rpm the big turbo kicks in to provide more power. It has to do with the inertia of the turbine. A small turbine has less inertia to overcome so spins up faster, but only delivers a small amount of air. A big turbine has high inertia, takes longer to spin, but has a bigger volume of air.
 
Uncle Harry
Stages for turbos in the GT game are simply a number to indicate a power output and lag range, Stage 4 does not mean you have 4 turbos bolted to the engine.
Read the description in the parts menu.
Stage 1 : small turbo with minimal lag.
Stage 2 : bigger turbo than stage 1,more power than stage one with more lag than 1
Stage 3 : bigger turbo than stage 2,more power than stage two with more lag than 2
Stage 4. the big high power turbo, big turbine requires more inertia to spool up to sped, thus the big lag.
Click to expand...

I see, but it still doesn't explain the massive lag found in GT1 high-power turbos. We were just musing on why they did things this way in the first game and no other.



A twin turbo system uses two turbos in unison, a small turbo to mimimise lag at low rpm. At higher rpm the big turbo kicks in to provide more power. It has to do with the inertia of the turbine. A small turbine has less inertia to overcome so spins up faster, but only delivers a small amount of air. A big turbine has high inertia, takes longer to spin, but has a bigger volume of air.
Click to expand...

Yup. We know this. But not all cars have twin-turbo systems like this. Again, it doesn't explain the massive lag found in some GT1 vehicles.

I would love to sit in a room with some of PD's designers and programers and pick their brains. I would have a huge list of questions.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back