Why are the cars slower than in real life? And wrong specs on some cars

[962 lm]

I go to the Le Mans track for example, and cannot reach top speed for nothing! GT1 cars have been known to go over 200 mph at Le Mans, but the best i can do is 180+, and that's another thing, they got some specs wrong on some cars, the Porsche GT1 for example has 600 hp, and it's been clocked at 206 mph at Le Mans, so that means it's faster than 193 mph, and the McLaren f1 GTR doesn't go 240 mph ether, too much downforce, the f1 does though! And the f1 needs to be in road the road car B class, because they tested it against the Ferrari Enzo, and it had a hard time keeping up with the McLaren f1, the Porsche GT3 RS shoud be in the road C class.

Porsche GT1 needs a buff
McLaren f1 GTR needs to be nerfed, and the McLaren f1, and Porsche gt3 rs need to switch classes.


What do you guys think?

 

[GOTMAXPOWER]

I'm possibly making this up (there is a chance this is from a totally different game) but I think some cars are victim of an artificial BoP to make them more competitive in their classes.

 

[05XR8]

Cars are grouped by Nordschleife times.
What conditions are you trying to reach top speeds? LiveTrack 3.0 also simulates wind speeds. what time of day? What season? What tyres are used? Tyre pressures? Aero settings? Gear settings? Are the tyres warmed up? Is the car warmed up?

 

[micmansour]

The Evo VI TME struggles to get to 200 km/h. Other car's are generally slower too. Game is full of incorrect specs (R32 GTR shows that it is a 6-speed sequential gearbox, but it's a 5-speed H-Pattern... go figure)

 

[JadeRaven]

The F1 GTR was detuned/restricted from the original F1 roadcar. That, combined with the heavy aero, means you should never see 240 in an F1 GTR. Also, for what it's worth, the only time the F1 hit 240 was at Ehra lessien, with a lifted rev limiter and taped body panels.

As for the others, I can't say, but for what it's worth, the mid-90s GT1 cars were never the top end speed kings that the earlier group C prototype cars were. Also consider that most of these cars ran at other events and likely would have been run in a lower downforce/drag setup at le mans.

 

[mattikake]

Every car I've tried doesn't seem capable of getting within 7.5% of it's listed top speed in the garage. Like the lotus 25. 154mph? No chance. I haven't tried a long test track but even with rads closed, tyres hard (smallest contact patch) I've never seen more than 142mph at monza. I'm sure it doesn't have the power to ever get there. It's like the air is too dense in live track 3.

 

[diesel97]

Every car I've tried doesn't seem capable of getting within 7.5% of it's listed top speed in the garage. Like the lotus 25. 154mph? No chance. I haven't tried a long test track but even with rads closed, tyres hard (smallest contact patch) I've never seen more than 142mph at monza. I'm sure it doesn't have the power to ever get there. It's like the air is too dense in live track 3.

You must love internet drama otherwise, why would you make a claim that, by your own words, you have not proven to be true. Really it would have taken 10 minutes to set up a test with a long straight, then you might have some proof to your statement.

 

[2112]

You must love internet drama otherwise, why would you make a claim that, by your own words, you have not proven to be true. Really it would have taken 10 minutes to set up a test with a long straight, then you might have some proof to your statement.

The premise is correct. The Audi LMP1's are nerfed as are many of the other cars. Why is it that the Audi LMP 1H could, in real life, reach speeds of over 200 mph on the first section of the Mulsanne yet they are hard pressed, with aero at 0-0, to reach 190 mph. The aero setting can be done as the Le Mans aero package relied upon the inherent aero of the car without much added wing aero. Having to close vents is not done in real life, and even so the speeds to not come close to race pace of the real car. It seems as if SMS purposely nerfs cars so they are either slower than the SMS fake cars or so that certain cars are used more than others.

Be nice to have real performance to work with rather than guessed upon performance, or nerfed performance.

 

[diesel97]

It seems as if SMS purposely nerfs cars so they are either slower than the SMS fake cars or so that certain cars are used more than others.

maybe SMS can't make their fake car in a video game to faster, they should send it back to the engineers and see if they can squeeze a few more pony out of it

 

[Sentry87]

Yet the marek and rwd lmp1s are still seconds slower than the audi and Toyota

 

[2112]

Yet the marek and rwd lmp1s are still seconds slower than the audi and Toyota

In the hands of a fair driver they are not slower.

 

[Sentry87]

In the hands of a fair

Yeah sure. But even amongst only a.i. Audi has better times by several seconds on some tracks.

 

[2112]

Yeah sure. But even amongst only a.i. Audi has better times by several seconds on some tracks.

Yes, it does, as many cars are superior on some tracks and inferior on others. The issue being brought up is that real cars are either being nerfed or they are being given speed that was never there. My problem, one I have had since PC1, is that they Audi's are nerfed to such a degree that they do not come close to speeds they reach in real life, while, especially in PC1, the SMS cars are given advantages in speed to the detriment of real cars. I will not drive the SMS cars as they are too unstable, but I do not like being passed by them because I choose to drive an E-Tron and cannot even attain speeds that the real-life E-Trons have.

I have no issue with SMS cars having more speed if real cars, like the E-Tron Quattro, are allowed to enjoy the performance that they enjoy in real life. They are not. The Audi's hit over 200 mph on the Mulsanne with regularity, yet they are hard pressed to get over 190 at 0-0 downforce in PC. Either iteration.

I like playing PC. It gives me most of what I want out of a racing game, but as a fan of sports car racing, going back to the 70's, if I am going to drive a real car in the game I want it to have real performance figures, not performance that has been nerfed or increased to get me to use certain cars.

 

[diesel97]

the SMS cars are given advantages in speed

How can a fake car be given advantages? What are the "real" numbers supposed to be for a fake car?

Your statement earlier that SMS is making their cars fast so you only drive them is a baseless joke. If they did that to manufacture that is a major sponsor and help pay the bills then that might make a little more sense.

 

[2112]

How can a fake car be given advantages? What are the "real" numbers supposed to be for a fake car?

Your statement earlier that SMS is making their cars fast so you only drive them is a baseless joke. If they did that to manufacture that is a major sponsor and help pay the bills then that might make a little more sense.

Since you seem to be unable to grasp what I stated in my prior posts I will try to make it clear enough for you to understand, (though it seems as if you are only here to insert snarky comments):

The advantage given to the SMS cars is that they are faster in a straight line in comparison to the Audi E-Tron, which has been nerfed. Please pay attention to the next sentence:

In real life the E-Tron regularly, (that means more often than not, usually every time), attains speeds of greater than 200 mph on the Mulsanne Straight, yet in PC they are hard pressed to hit 190 even when their aero is zero'd out front and back.

As far as "real" numbers for a fake car? Please, if you will, point out where I said anything about "real" numbers for the SMS cars. If you had read my posts correctly you would have seen that my problem is with the real performance numbers of real cars, such as the Audi E-Tron.

My statement you call a joke is merely a supposition as to why SMS would nerf certain cars, the SMS cars in relation to the E-Tron for example, and my conjecture that SMS did that to sway one toward their cars instead of, say, the Audi.

The joke is that you insist upon inserting your comments in a thread in which you seem to have no real objective but to ridicule. You come up with no plausible explanation as to why the E-Tron performance numbers are so far off, you come up with nothing to explain any reason why any of the numbers on the real cars would be so far off the real life performance numbers.

You just ridicule.

Do you have anything productive to add or do you just wish to continue to act in a childish manner?

 

[diesel97]

I think if any other car had this issue(according to you) and not Audi you would not care, I still don't understand why SMS would want you to drive only their cars?

 

[2112]

Again, nothing to add, merely ridicule or, in this case, baseless claims of favoritism, yet since you seem to have made a real effort to respond in a half-way adult manner I will respond to your accusation:

I have a problems with the performance number of many of the cars, the Audi R8 LMP900 was the first one I noticed, but the E-Tron is the one with the most obvious numbers issue. That is why I used it as an example.

The Toyota LMPH is also nerfed in top speed and I believe that the hybrid systems of both cars do not accurately reflect the performance of the real life hybrid systems.

What I have noticed, from PC1 to PC2, is that the newer cars performance seems to be more realistic, especially with the Gp. C cars and some of the older Gp 5 and GTO cars.

It is not just Audi, it is merely the best example I could think of.