This is an important topic, however, as mentioned somewhere above, the people who need to read important forum threads usually don't. I hope some of the people that need to read this do.

This is my oppinion:

I don't agree that the admins are to blame for crapy pickup races, the drivers who ruin them are; however admins are the only proper defense against incapable drivers. Vote-ban can be sufficient at times but is usually not. This is where the decision between "big government" or "complete freedom" come into play. I think a middle gound can be reached.

I am all for freedom on the servers, however freedom requires responsibility. That is where insim comes in, as government (aka. insim and "SR"). So I would be willing to compromise IFF one request be met. I'll submit my solution after I make my request for server owners.

Request:

Standardize and merge toghether all the insim databases so that SR, rank, license, etc. are applicable to all servers that run insim class systems. This would require a public database. If this means starting over one more time I would gladly.

This solution is only posible with a public unified insim database. Of course this only applies to servers that run insim class systems.

Solution:

(1)Driving course requirement: If there is a way to know if someone has completed the LFS Training, make a requirement to be able to pass PRO/QUICK Ai for the car that a person wants to drive online. If there is no way of knowing via. packets, require a file from the lessons to be uploaded to the Unified Insim Database. If the car in question has not been passed on PRO/QUICK then the person can not drive that car online.

Do away with the "build your license" approach. It is too time consuming.

With this everone on the server is/can be expected to be able to drive cleanly. therefore there are no excuses for someone when they cause an unreasonable insident.

(2)Safety Score(SR): Just like another sim, and most class servers, safety rating is a good way of promoting clean racing. However, at the time it is not strict enough. SR seems to work well on another sim, so why throw away a good solution.

If you think this has potential, add solutions to this list instead of just complaining and agreeing with the OP. I agree with the OP, but it is useless if no solution is made.

@coolcolJ

It has a lot of grip like you said. The car had practicaly zero wheel spin the entire time I was testing it out. I thougtht I was driving pretty quick until I saw the record time at Suzuka (where I tested the car). I have never driven an F1 car, but that thing just ain't right.

@coolcolJ

Too late. It took me about an hour doing the s class ford GT time trial:

• 32,500 per race for third
  
• 1,400,00 left to earn
  
• 1'15-1'14 per lap + loading times
  
• aproxamately 1:30'00 (with estimated loading times)
  

The actual time it took to gather 2,000,000 cr was about 2:20'00. I had to take care of business a few times because of all the water I was drinking.

Thanks col for the online tip. Ill try to keep that in mind. For now though, I am working to get the F1 car. Only one-million-four-hundred-thousand to go.

Quote from CoolColJ :

...snip...

I know what you are talking about with the GT-R. That car seems to have gotten the most attention. After picking up GT5P again after some time, I have spent the time to complete all of the events. The past two days I completed C to S. Until recently I had not been able to adjust the cars using quick tune. When I went to adjust the settings for the PP events I noticed the default braking bias is equal front and rear in all cars. I would assume that 50/50 brake bias would cause a lot of over-steer on the brakes, however in most cars that is not the case. The GT-R being the exception.

I think the lack of tire noise while braking is causing me to over brake in the game, which attributes to the under-steer feeling.

@coolcolJ

Are those experiences with a game pad thumb stick coolcolJ? From my experiences with GT4 and GT5P with my wheel, the cars all have under-steer or are extremely stable in extreme situations while on the brakes. However, the mid-engine cars were the ones that had better preformance while trail-braking because the front tires actually did not push as they do in other cars.

On another note but also about GT5's physics, I noticed recovery from light wall-bumps was much easier in GT Time Trial. The weight transfer felt less conditional as it has in the previous games. In GT5P, while driving on High Speed Ring, if there was a little rough contact with the barrier in T1, the car became uncontrollable for a few seconds after contact with said barrier. The car almost entirely unpredictable.

I can only imagine this has gotten better since.

Quote from BlueFlame :

I will, and I do.

Good for you you get a cookie.

Quote from ACCAkut :

...snip...

If only 70% of the market will be playing with the game pad, how many of that 70% will actually be using the professional physics option? Did size of the population make the professional driving physics not a priority? Yet PD still implemented the option to switch between standard and professional physics for the minority to accommodate the market. If the size of the population should determine the priorities of GT5's aspects, then it was a waste of time updating the physics. Much of GT5's market are not avid sim racers. They would be content with eye-candy. If that is the case then Inouva is correct that GT5 is just a screen shot generator.



The reason steering ratios should be a priority is it will help the cars feel more like their real life counterparts. It should be an option available to those who want it just like the professional physics is an option for those who want it.

The ai are programed to limit tire sliding. WR setups are made to slide. So there is your problem.

That is a cool A** pic, you have now assimilated with everyone else. At least it still works with your location

Quote from J03130 :

sorry dude ive gotta say this fix ur damn sig xD been bugging me for ages u have TI instead of IT haha

sorry dude ive gotta say this fix ur damn avatar xD been bugging me for ages u have some ugly A** pic instead of some cool A** pic like everybody else haha

I hope by the time GT5 is released PD will implement real, or close to real steering ratios for the realistic/professional physics. Considering the availability for FFB wheels with 900° of steering, it is not unreasonable to expect realistic steering ratios.

From my experience with the GT5 time trial, the Nissan, in the trial, felt as sensitive as a single seater. When the wheel was turned passed about 180° the steering felt as though it had a progressive steering ratio. I know the car has a 14.7:1 fixed steering ratio. The car has speed sensitive power steering, but that has nothing to do with the steering ratio.

I can only hope that this all gets worked out by the time of GT5's release. As long as there is an option to use realistic steering ratios for wheels with 900°+ of steering I will be happy. I think the vehicle performance will feel much more realistic with matching steering ratios for each car. It should be one of their variables that they could enter into the physic for each car. Steering ratio is just as important as the geometry of the suspension. It should not be left out.

make sure you calibrate your wheel in LFS every time you unplug the G25 usb cable from your computer.

To calibrate: start up lfs, turn wheel all the way to the left and to the right.

you have to set the wheel turn compensation to 1 in the options in order to automatically switch steering degrees when you change cars. As long as you have the wheel set to greater than 720°, the steering will always be 1:1.

I guess I'm just an idiot.

I thought the number was the total across the front or rear wheels. In the suspension options the values are just labeled front and rear.

New improvement suggestion:

Spring stiffness should be labeled per wheel. It is not entirely clear at first glance. I didn't know for 3+ years!

In this dimension that we can experience there is only one "real" physics. To say otherwise is similar to saying the earth actually was flat when people thought the earth was flat.

or is that a quote from the Matrix (the movie)?

cool thanks

On another note. I have found that the suspension rate for the front and rear in the pits is the spring rate per wheel! I didn't know that 'till now! I have been using twice the spring rate necessary to support the cars weight + down force.

For example:

I was calculating I needed 155.5N/mm for a height of 115mm in the rear.

I actually only needed 67.6N/mm for a height of 115mm!!!!!

This explains the fact that I was only using half the distance of travel at max 195mph where I reach max load form down force. Which is what I saw from the telemetry data.

Now, with my updated suspension, the car actually bottoms out on the straight at 195mph.

So thank you Forbin for directing me to f1perfview!!!

The telemetry is actually making sense because I am getting results that I am expecting.

I have prevented the car form bottoming out horribly there using the method you have said. The car no longer steps out when driving on that curb no mater where I put the wheels.

I still think it would be interesting to see the cars Z-axis G's. The discussion about Indy in another thread spurred that interest.

I couldn't think of one that I should use and I was not been able to get in my damn Calculus class this semester because of priority registration. I'll know what you are talking about when the time comes. I labeled the variables for the reason that I didn't know if they were used for something else.

I would prefer the Z-axis G display. I could calculate a more accurate spring rate/ride height ratio. I want to be able to adjust them together so that the final spring force at the end of the compression is the same.

For example:

(x N / y mm) z mm = 28,320N ;

z=desired travel

x & y=arbitrary variables

With this I can get the appropriate force to distance ratio to equal 28320N. Coincidentally that is the load acting on the suspension of the BF1 at 195mph with the driver, a full tank of fuel, and the down force.

Now, if there is a bump in the road at 195mph there is no more suspension travel available to absorb that bump/upward arc. In the case with Aston GP I want to know how much force that equation needs to equal in order to prevent bottoming out.

I have noticed when I try to guess the spring length I tend to over compensate or under compensate, and I can't seem to get it where I am sure it is on the limit.

Last edited by legoflamb, Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:51. Reason : Bad use of variables

I'll check out f1perfview.

That would have been a good Idea.

A long road is certainly true. I agree, the different physics models have their own feel at the limit. Only certain situations do they feel similar.

I think the g indicator (when displaying F9 or F10) should include positive and negative g's.

The reason behind this request is:

I would like to calculate the required spring rate and ride height to counteract the extra g's to prevent the car from bottoming out in dips on the track if at all possible. When the car bottoms out mid corner this causes loss of grip that tends to make the rear end step out. I want to put a stop to this.

A good example: Aston Grand Prix

Guessing at the correct g multiplier is easier than finding the slope of the grade to calculate the arc distance over time to figure the amount of force produced in that arc. This is why a g indicator would be easier.

Adjusting the suspension according to the forces applied is better than using voodoo to get the right performance out of the suspension. This is especially the case with the down force cars because the proper ride height and spring rate need to be figured out to accommodate bumps at full down force load.

Last edited by legoflamb, Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:30.

I have thought about the differences in the way a racing game feels from one to another, or one physics model to another, and have concluded:

As technology and development continue, each game will feel more and more similar.

I can draw this conclusion because each game, in its own way, is trying to achieve the same goal. That is realism. The closer they get to realism, the more each game will feel similar. This is because there is only one "real".

Eventually every racing game will feel exactly the same.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Yes, and I have been talking about components of that net force. Horizonatal and vertical relative to the chassis!!!

that is why I said you were both right.