Why I think there are so many bugs in PCARS.

Ridox2JZGTE
This is where you are showing that you are misunderstanding my intention. Both real world numbers ( correct data ) and proper physics engine are necessary. If you think Clio Cup with totally different spring rate and caster, much higher damper value than the real car uses is fine, then you never really care about accuracy of a simulation at all, all you care about is it feels great to drive and realistic enough for you.
Don't you feel curious how the Clio will drive if it has the correct spring rate ( stiffer front and softer rear ), correct caster ( lower ), correct damper values range ( the curve cover 20 click range adjustment and lower than Pcars renge ), and no rear anti roll bar ( yes the real Clio do not have rear anti roll bar, even the MK3 ). Then the correct final gear, Renault Sport uses special final not normally available from Sadev catalog ( Pcars sues finals from the Sadev Catalog, so one cannot know this without referring to the Renault Sport data )

My main issue though, is mainly concerned with road cars in PCars.

Have you read the consultant feedback report, they are based on custom tune not OEM setting for some road cars. Try drive the FQ400, that car has Nic Hamilton tune as stock, and SMS altered the steering ratio to be more forgiving as Nic likes very fast steering. The final FQ400 on release is basically Nic Hamilton tune, it doesn't not even use the real car spring rate. Nic didn't even notice the final gear is using 6 speed SST final, much lower at 4.062 on a 5 speed Manual Evo X that should have 4.687 final.

If you read the whole report, you will have greater understanding of what the physics lead and consultant did to each car. They often change the car parameter to what Ben Collins and Nic Hamilton think the car should do ( on a setup of their liking as they tweak SMS tune ), including specific tire of each car. The FQ400 for example, the spring rate was higher than the Eibach spring fitted on the real car ( if Pcars has proper spring physics and properly coded the motion ratio, this will make the car handle differently than it should have with OEM spring rate )

Then the caster, Oh my Lord, it has 6.00 stock caster as used by Nic, the real OEM Evo X caster is 4degree 25minutes or 4.4 degree( not adjustable/fixed ) Lowering can alter the caster usually 3.9 to 4.1, some stock Evo X has 4.2 or 4.1 caster ( degree ).The FQ400 is lower by 30mm front and 25mm rear from stock ( Eibach Pro Kit ). the ride height also seems to be off in Pcars. The higher caster alone alters the car turn in unlike the real car would drive. I havent touched the S-AWC yet, which seems to be not fully modeled ( ACD + AYC in particular )

See where I am getting at ... they are built with incorrect data to begin with, shaped to the consultant feedback. If the consultant didn't even know the car setup is unlike the real car, how they can be accountable for the end result ? They may give input to make the car drives realistic according to their experience driving similar car, like Nic said in his feedback on FQ400, he based it on his general AWD car knowledge ( he didn't mention specific real FQ400 handling traits ) and yet he also has to consider stable handling car as stock ( if you read in details ), Nic and Chris Ringley aim to tune the car to be good to drive ( stable, safe but still quick ) using custom setup.

My only wish is this, get the car data correct ( springs, tested real life weight/distribution, caster, alignment, gear ratio, and all the basic data ), then fine tune the other parameter like tire, chassis, aero drag etc using the consultant feedback. With old race car and data is scarce, I can understand, but the new cars like FQ400, 1M and Clio Cup 2014 Mk4, these should have correct data from the start of build process. This way, we can be sure Pcars is producing closer true to life replication of the real car and then when I get Pcars 2, I wont have to check the OEM stock setup and make correction again, just drive and be sure 100% it's as close as you can get to the real deal.

SMS also has hinted of giving OEM setup later on, will have to see if these OEM setup indeed correct OEM.
Click to expand...
Great stuff to read thanks:tup:
 
Ridox2JZGTE
Believe what you believe.

With the Clio, WMD have noted my observation regarding Clio Cup inconsistencies, this shows SMS do care :)
Click to expand...
I believe I didn't mention anything about the innaccuracies of the stock settings in PCars, and everything about the accuracy of PCars physics if you are really intent on making cars in game, drive and perform like real cars.
 
Johnnypenso
I believe I didn't mention anything about the innaccuracies of the stock settings in PCars, and everything about the accuracy of PCars physics if you are really intent on making cars in game, drive and perform like real cars.
Click to expand...
He is of the impression that if the numbered data is wrong, then the physics are too.
 
ImaRobot
He is of the impression that if the numbered data is wrong, then the physics are too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's right, you know better than I do. I never said the physics engine is wrong, I never once put the pcars physics in bad light, it's the object data ( car data ) that needs correction where there are inaccurate data. I was more concerned with the outcome of inaccurate data like this FQ400 final gear example.

Do you have/play Pcars ? Try the FQ400 Evo X, drive it and notice how long each gear is. The car has 6 speed SST final 4.062, while it's supposed to be 4.687 as the FQ400 is 5MT. Do you think this needs to be corrected or not ? It does not perform like a real FQ400 should ( acceleration and top speed ) The real FQ400 has 8000RPM revlimit. What makes me wonder, no one has ever raise this issue ever since the FQ400 is in pcars build ...how many testers and how many years ...

There are more from FQ400 like caster :)

I'm discussing this with WMD member who have much better understanding of my intention. He's passing over my infos to Casey Ringley ( SMS Physics Lead ) and I got replies already ( from Casey ):)
 
scholesy1899
No he isn't, he's just saying they went with Nic Hamiltons feel and applied that.
Click to expand...
Not talking about this thread, I'm talking about what he's said before.

Ridox2JZGTE
Yeah, that's right, you know better than I do. I never said the physics engine is wrong
Click to expand...
I find that odd, since you said exactly that.
Ridox.PNG
 
ImaRobot
Not talking about this thread, I'm talking about what he's said before.


I find that odd, since you said exactly that.
View attachment 396747
Click to expand...

You misunderstood what I said, I meant the outcome is messed up ( not like it should if the data is correct ) The last part, is where I doubt the credibility of the process + result , that leads to stock setup if they used inaccurate data. To get to certain feel that the tester wanted, they may have taken different path than when using correct data. Sometimes car physic model can be altered to suit too ( COG, bump stop, CoD, etc ), which complicate things.

I hate writing in comments of status updates, had to be concise, and shortening words makes my intention warped.
 
Ridox2JZGTE
You misunderstood what I said, I meant the outcome is messed up ( not like it should if the data is correct ) The last part, is where I doubt the credibility of the process + result , that leads to stock setup if they used inaccurate data.

I hate writing in comments of status updates, had to be concise, and shortening words makes my intention warped.
Click to expand...
Then I'm unsure why you brought up physics being wrong in the first place, if you didnt mean to say that the physics were wrong. I'm just a bit confused as to what was shortened that could dramatically change what you mean by that much.
 
ImaRobot
Then I'm unsure why you brought up physics being wrong in the first place, if you didnt mean to say that the physics were wrong. I'm just a bit confused as to what was shortened that could dramatically change what you mean by that much.
Click to expand...

I may have difficulties conveying my intention on the comments. Being wrong supposed to mean that with inaccurate car data being manipulated, the car physics programmer will have to make changes to the car to give certain result ( that may not be needed with accurate data ), shaping it with more freedom but still within physics limits, instead of letting it evolve from accurate data ( that stays locked in ) using consultant feedback and make changes , but still within the accurate data as foundation. It's conformity of data and result :) if someone didn't know the car data is inaccurate and found the car drives unlike what he knows in real, he would have impression the physics is doing it wrong - giving unexpected result in handling or feedback.
 
Ridox2JZGTE
I'm discussing this with WMD member who have much better understanding of my intention. He's passing over my infos to Casey Ringley ( SMS Physics Lead ) and I got replies already ( from Casey ):)
Click to expand...
That would be me, and with regards to the FQ400 final gear: Your info is correct and it will be changed. :cheers:

Clio is still under investigation, but SMS already indicated that if data/settings are incorrect and there is documentation to prove otherwise they will change it. Not just limited to Clio BTW.

EDIT: Clio will be changed too. 👍
 
Last edited:
NLxAROSA
That would be me, and with regards to the FQ400 final gear: Your info is correct and it will be changed. :cheers:

Clio is still under investigation, but SMS already indicated that if data/settings are incorrect and there is documentation to prove otherwise they will change it. Not just limited to Clio BTW.

EDIT: Clio will be changed too. 👍
Click to expand...
Brilliant:tup:
 
Last edited:
Yup, another fine example of how the WMD models works. :) So keep those numbers coming: as long as they can be officially validated (=manufacturer or other official documentation), they will be corrected. 👍
 

Latest Posts

Back