I am glad that it helped someone.
Since I am with my wheel again, I spent some time trying to make that set less understeery while keeping good balance.
Unfortunately the luck of rear antiroll bar ruins the balance. (in that case, while turning, a stiff front antiroll bar lowers the front of the car way more than the back… That causes first turn in oversteer, then mid corner understeer and at the corner exit while you decrease the steering angle, redusing the antiroll bar’s effect, the front suspention decompresses sending weight to the back creating some more corner exit oversteer.)
So I got rid of it...
Hardened up the springs to get the same total roll stiffness as in my previous set and tested various settings in that way.
The front antiroll bar is set to 0 and you can use it for fine tuning, adjusting it by 1 or 2N/mm to kill any unnecessary oversteer... till a limit... it's not super glue or something
I am happy with the result. For me that’s better balanced (maybe not easier though) than my previous set and it still has high tire pressures and reasonable mid low negative camber values.
[edit] with the front ARB set to 2N/mm it handles like a dream for my driving style at blackwood.
But anyway this is a general base set so I leave it to 0 [/edit]
Since I am with my wheel again, I spent some time trying to make that set less understeery while keeping good balance.
Unfortunately the luck of rear antiroll bar ruins the balance. (in that case, while turning, a stiff front antiroll bar lowers the front of the car way more than the back… That causes first turn in oversteer, then mid corner understeer and at the corner exit while you decrease the steering angle, redusing the antiroll bar’s effect, the front suspention decompresses sending weight to the back creating some more corner exit oversteer.)
So I got rid of it...
Hardened up the springs to get the same total roll stiffness as in my previous set and tested various settings in that way.The front antiroll bar is set to 0 and you can use it for fine tuning, adjusting it by 1 or 2N/mm to kill any unnecessary oversteer... till a limit... it's not super glue or something
I am happy with the result. For me that’s better balanced (maybe not easier though) than my previous set and it still has high tire pressures and reasonable mid low negative camber values.
[edit] with the front ARB set to 2N/mm it handles like a dream for my driving style at blackwood.
But anyway this is a general base set so I leave it to 0 [/edit]
Last edited by kaynd, .
Or kill all unnecessary processes from the task manager and set superpi to high priority
That’s why I said it is a “sporty” set meaning that it is more like a road going set.
Anyway because it has no rear anti roll bar and the front roll resistance is more than 2x grater comparing to the rear, the rear inside tire stays loaded while turning, so low negative camber value helps the inside tire have a decent contact patch with the road. Also the high tire pressure minimizes tire deflection, so that -1.6 deg is ok and helps the tire heatup evenly.
As for the front tires… well only 40% of the cars weight is at the front and tires seem to be even front and rear… Rear weighted cars have wider tires at the back (eg FZ50)
So I did keep also the front camber low (~1.5) despite the huge weight transfer to the outside tire cause of the (a lot) harder front suspension.
In my opinion, generally low (till a limit) negative camber values help the car be a bit more predictable and loose traction more progressively. That’s what I wanted to achieve with that RAC set.
That’s exactly what I had in mind, when I wrote the comment “it is not always well balanced to keep the absolute minimum coast locking… especially when you are using very high power locking.”
Last edited by kaynd, .
I made recently a general “sporty” setup for the RAC trying mainly to make it more (?) netural… a bit les mid corner understeer but also less unstable while changing direction, maybe a bit less understeery on the corner exit while keeping it kind of predictable while loosing rear traction because of excessive wheel spin.
Well this is what I am aiming for I am still far away from my goals.
I wanted to improve the car’s character by keeping realistic settings, like normal tire pressures (170-200kPA), low camber (1.5~1.6), low-mid diff locking (25~50) and with enough ride height so it is not that easy for the dampers to reach the bump stops.
I did yesterday some laps @ BL1 and pulled 1:22.34, using mouse (away from my wheel in Christmas holydays) well it is not a good time but I was expecting it to be worse! I am pretty happy about it because I am still at the beginning of my learning curve on this combo and my fastest lap contained a lot of sliding and silly on-off throttle inputs cause of the mouse… So maybe that is a good base for a fast set.
As for your sets axus, I like some of them but in general I think that it is not always well balanced to keep the absolute minimum coast locking… especially when you are using very high power locking.
Because I am still away from my wheel I can’t give specific feedback but the turn in overseer is a bit excessive in some of your sets like the FZR’s
Also try to watch out the spring length you use cause the LX4’s set is bottoming out way to easy.
Well this is what I am aiming for I am still far away from my goals.
I wanted to improve the car’s character by keeping realistic settings, like normal tire pressures (170-200kPA), low camber (1.5~1.6), low-mid diff locking (25~50) and with enough ride height so it is not that easy for the dampers to reach the bump stops.
I did yesterday some laps @ BL1 and pulled 1:22.34, using mouse (away from my wheel in Christmas holydays) well it is not a good time but I was expecting it to be worse! I am pretty happy about it because I am still at the beginning of my learning curve on this combo and my fastest lap contained a lot of sliding and silly on-off throttle inputs cause of the mouse… So maybe that is a good base for a fast set.
As for your sets axus, I like some of them but in general I think that it is not always well balanced to keep the absolute minimum coast locking… especially when you are using very high power locking.
Because I am still away from my wheel I can’t give specific feedback but the turn in overseer is a bit excessive in some of your sets like the FZR’s
Also try to watch out the spring length you use cause the LX4’s set is bottoming out way to easy.
Last edited by kaynd, .
don't really have a clue about that... i do know that Super pi uses only one core but latest intel's quad core seem to be more effective clock per clock or it is just cause of the better chipset+ DDR3 ram...
12.391s
Intel Core2Duo E6600@4106MHz - biostar Tforce 965PT - supertalent T800UX2GC5 4 4 4 12 @ 912mhz - watercooled
http://www.thelab.gr/showthread.php?postid=493259#post493259
I did this benchmark 1year ago when i first got my C2D6600 and decided to find it's limits (not really good core code cause with a capable watercooling system like mine it should go higher)
Anyway nowdays it is a piece of cake to drop below 10sec with an Intel Quad core.
Intel Core2Duo E6600@4106MHz - biostar Tforce 965PT - supertalent T800UX2GC5 4 4 4 12 @ 912mhz - watercooled
http://www.thelab.gr/showthread.php?postid=493259#post493259
I did this benchmark 1year ago when i first got my C2D6600 and decided to find it's limits (not really good core code cause with a capable watercooling system like mine it should go higher)
Anyway nowdays it is a piece of cake to drop below 10sec with an Intel Quad core.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=635427#post635427
As for the LAG .. maby it isn't lag but just frame drops caused by your hardware? i know that current LFS's sound system uses a lot the CPU but I don't think it effects lag.
Yes but it costs way less than a proper supercar
I also don't like the shape... but I usually don’t like any spaceship-like designed car so it is not that surprising for me...
As for the weight i think this skyline is more like a fast long-distance cruiser, than a sport car tbh...
Last edited by kaynd, .
In BF1 and FZ50, traction control acts like clutch slip control, it’s a known problem
This is better Scawen.
As for the way you calculate the clutch strength.
It should be a combination of power and engine inertia
If we have two engines with the same power curve, the one which has more inertia doesn’t necessarily need a stronger clutch.
It all depends in the given time both engines how much energy they can store in rotational inertia.
Eg while been airborne after a bump for about half a second, at that given time in which the engines just increase revs, the one with the heavier inertia will just reach lower revs comparing with the lighter.
Unless the engine with the lighter interia hit the rev limiter and stop storing energy in rotational force, both engines are going to store the same amount of energy and the stress on the clutch will be the same when the car lands again.
If the lighter engine hit the rev limiter in that given time, the one with the heavier inertia will store more energy and stress more the clutch so in that case the “heavier” one indeed need’s a stronger clutch.
A simple example.
Let’s say that XRG’s engine inertia is able to store twice as much energy in rotational force while been at 7000rpm comparing to what the XFG can store in 7000rpm.
This doesn’t mean that the XRG needs twice the clutch strength to hold that maximum inertia force.
Because in a given short time (that half second while the car flies over those big bumps in rallyX) XRG’s engine is not that more powerful over XFG’s, to store twice the engine’s rotational inertia force.
I am saying that, because still the XRG’s clutch seems to last way longer in the same conditions comparing to XFG’s as JTbo mentioned.
Anyway I think there is not anything else you can do now, patch Y is coming soon and the clutch is much more usable now in some cars which had problems.
Just promise us that you are going to work it again in the future, with some real data because now I think it is pretty much guess work
As for the way you calculate the clutch strength.
It should be a combination of power and engine inertia
If we have two engines with the same power curve, the one which has more inertia doesn’t necessarily need a stronger clutch.
It all depends in the given time both engines how much energy they can store in rotational inertia.
Eg while been airborne after a bump for about half a second, at that given time in which the engines just increase revs, the one with the heavier inertia will just reach lower revs comparing with the lighter.
Unless the engine with the lighter interia hit the rev limiter and stop storing energy in rotational force, both engines are going to store the same amount of energy and the stress on the clutch will be the same when the car lands again.
If the lighter engine hit the rev limiter in that given time, the one with the heavier inertia will store more energy and stress more the clutch so in that case the “heavier” one indeed need’s a stronger clutch.
A simple example.
Let’s say that XRG’s engine inertia is able to store twice as much energy in rotational force while been at 7000rpm comparing to what the XFG can store in 7000rpm.
This doesn’t mean that the XRG needs twice the clutch strength to hold that maximum inertia force.
Because in a given short time (that half second while the car flies over those big bumps in rallyX) XRG’s engine is not that more powerful over XFG’s, to store twice the engine’s rotational inertia force.
I am saying that, because still the XRG’s clutch seems to last way longer in the same conditions comparing to XFG’s as JTbo mentioned.
Anyway I think there is not anything else you can do now, patch Y is coming soon and the clutch is much more usable now in some cars which had problems.
Just promise us that you are going to work it again in the future, with some real data because now I think it is pretty much guess work
Last edited by kaynd, .
I mean that you have borders both up-down and left right so you can increase the overall image size by not changing it’s aspect ratio till you run out of the available height or width. (I really struggle sometimes to explain something simple in English, sorry for that:schwitz
To deal with that you should change the aspect ratio to 4:3 (cause that is the A.R. of youtubes video frame) just for the youtube version by adding the appropriate borders so you don’t distort the image.
eg If your video resolution is 1280*1024 to convert it to 4:3 without cropping you have to fit it in a 1366*1024 frame by adding 2 black borders right-left 43pixels on each side. Of course there is no reason uploading it on youtube in that resolution so you could do it in a lower resolution with the same aspect ratio (4:3) e.g 640*480
But right now I don’t see that kind of borders in your video. It’s more like they are equal in height and width.
Anyway it not worth mentioning… cause youtubes quality is already cr@p and the resolution is so small (320*240) that the distortion between 4:3 and 5:4 ar, is not even noticeable.
To deal with that you should change the aspect ratio to 4:3 (cause that is the A.R. of youtubes video frame) just for the youtube version by adding the appropriate borders so you don’t distort the image.
eg If your video resolution is 1280*1024 to convert it to 4:3 without cropping you have to fit it in a 1366*1024 frame by adding 2 black borders right-left 43pixels on each side. Of course there is no reason uploading it on youtube in that resolution so you could do it in a lower resolution with the same aspect ratio (4:3) e.g 640*480
But right now I don’t see that kind of borders in your video. It’s more like they are equal in height and width.
Anyway it not worth mentioning… cause youtubes quality is already cr@p and the resolution is so small (320*240) that the distortion between 4:3 and 5:4 ar, is not even noticeable.
For the engine mount flex. I haven’t any arithmetic values but I have seen some engines move a lot even with just hard revups in netural. On some dyno runs, I couldn’t believe how much the engine mounts where flexing.
I tried to find some decent videos on youtube about that.
This is a good example of stock engine mounts
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=FrK8-fd9cN8
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vRSkvmAT8
Sometimes this is a problem because the engine moves so much the gearbox, that you can’t shift a gear fast enough so there comes the need for an engine dumper especially if you have increased its power.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxa8o0Kq83c
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=lC4Dr_Mr2gY
And all this flex distortion is way less than axle twist that mentioned above.
I tried to find some decent videos on youtube about that.
This is a good example of stock engine mounts
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=FrK8-fd9cN8
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vRSkvmAT8
Sometimes this is a problem because the engine moves so much the gearbox, that you can’t shift a gear fast enough so there comes the need for an engine dumper especially if you have increased its power.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxa8o0Kq83c
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=lC4Dr_Mr2gY
And all this flex distortion is way less than axle twist that mentioned above.
Tested all road cars in rally X and I agree that only the XFG is problematic with it's clutch temperature.
It is for sure better. (The way clutch cools down helps a lot) Please keep it in that way if we are going to stay for long time with the current model
Ah i see.
I just always keep the aspect ratio at 4:3 or 16:9 and haven’t faced that kind of problem at all.
But if you have a TFT and using a 5:4 resolution (1280*1024) then it is normal having borders.
But tbh in your case it seems just a bit zoomed out
Anyway nice video making activity
I just always keep the aspect ratio at 4:3 or 16:9 and haven’t faced that kind of problem at all.
But if you have a TFT and using a 5:4 resolution (1280*1024) then it is normal having borders.
But tbh in your case it seems just a bit zoomed out
Anyway nice video making activity
Yeah, there are many other factors that aren’t simulated at all, so maybe the clutch model is ok and is being super uber stressed in some cases by all other super rigid components.
I confirm that the clutch lasts much more in road courses than it did before.
It doesn’t seem to heat up in a slower rate, but it cools down way faster than before. (ok that’s my wrong impression as i now saw what Scawen wrote at the previews page)
This keeps easily the clutch cool even by flat shifting for 4-5laps at a road track but it doesn’t help in rallyx mode
But anyway it seems that clutch's increased heat "resistance" is not the solution on it's own for the enormous stress that forces the clutch slipping by all that frequent loss and regain of grip that happens in rallyx tracks.
Try bl Rally x with the xfg... the clutch still goes red after 4 laps.
It doesn’t seem to heat up in a slower rate, but it cools down way faster than before. (ok that’s my wrong impression as i now saw what Scawen wrote at the previews page)
This keeps easily the clutch cool even by flat shifting for 4-5laps at a road track but it doesn’t help in rallyx mode
But anyway it seems that clutch's increased heat "resistance" is not the solution on it's own for the enormous stress that forces the clutch slipping by all that frequent loss and regain of grip that happens in rallyx tracks.
Try bl Rally x with the xfg... the clutch still goes red after 4 laps.
Last edited by kaynd, .
I did test it in BL2 and found it almost the same as before.
After a careful nth check I found that it cools down a bit faster.
I don’t want to sound rude or something but are you sure the produced heat decreased by 25% because I can’t find any difference at all
:ashamed:(Maybe the clutch grips a bit better at the point it becomes red, comparing to the previews version, but the difference is barely noticeable.)
Nice video overall despite the low fps in some parts and the boring AI divers.
Nice lap.
As for the video, why there is always that black border? Youtube's video resolution is already low and you are wasting many pixels with that…
As for the video, why there is always that black border? Youtube's video resolution is already low and you are wasting many pixels with that…
It sounds from Glenn's descreption as an FWD
I agree that locked diffs should not be so easy to drive... but that has completely to do with LFS's current tire physics.
Anyway principles of making a locked diff setup are the same in LFS as IRL. but i always avoid them
I agree that locked diffs should not be so easy to drive... but that has completely to do with LFS's current tire physics.
Anyway principles of making a locked diff setup are the same in LFS as IRL.
but i always avoid themThe intel C2D based system should handle it better.
I used to be an AMD funboy before the lunch of the intel’s C2D a couple of years ago. But current intel’s processors are just better in almost any way.
I used to be an AMD funboy before the lunch of the intel’s C2D a couple of years ago. But current intel’s processors are just better in almost any way.
I think it would be better as a visual counter instead of a clipping message…
The first is just informative and useful, the second would just force you use something lower because you will have awfully distorted FF effects on the FF limit…
The first is just informative and useful, the second would just force you use something lower because you will have awfully distorted FF effects on the FF limit…
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG