well, how abou try to leave the FZR with 90kg of ballast instead of 100?
also, remove 5kg of ballast on the XRR
IMO the FZR must be a little bit faster than the other GTR's, due its NA engine and centre of gravity
the XRR should have more top speed than others gtr's, due its turbo engine
the FXR it's fine IMO
of course, it should not be like before the patch, where the FZR was a lot more faster than the others GTR's
Not this time. This is only multiplayer incompatible patch. Physics are the same (except preload, but it does not matter), so all old replays are still compatible.
@11SuLLy11: These handicaps are only used online, so in the hotlap mode they are gone.
Are the rallycross tracks "inluded" in the balancing?
The RB4 is quite a bit faster on the rallycross tracks but loses on tarmac, at least now. As I see it there are two options: rallycross and tarmac either have different balances or rallycross should be left out totally from the balancing.
The first option is quite useless option because (as I've understood) the balancing is just a test patch feature to balance the cars in the next incompatible patch. = to have different balances for rally and tarmac would mean that we have 2 versions of each cars. Of course, having rallycross versions would be a new car class and could be balanced quite well for rallycross tracks. But people would also want to drive those on tarmac where the balance would be totally wrong. As would be the balance of the normal TBOs on rally. Also if rallycross has an effect on the balancing it will totally mess the balancing for the RB4 because the rallycross times make it look more competitive than what it actually is.
Leaving rallycross out from the balancing means that RB4 will be over a second faster on all rallycross tracks. However, as an awd car on tracks where the cars are most of the time traction limited, the awd has a substantial benefit and imho should stay that way- At the same time it will mean that RB4 is the super rallycross TBO. There is of course the possibility that RB4 rallycross is left out from the balancing and the FXO&XRT get somewhat balanced for rallycrossing too. What kind of effect would this have on tarmac balancing...?
All that being said, rallycross shouldn't have effect on the balancing because the cars themselves aren't made for rallycross. They are tarmac track racers primarily
Then on the other thing...
I read from the first post that the FXO will get narrower tires in the next patch with several other balancings. To be honest, what's the point to try to balance the cars now when the cars will change (noticeably?) in the next incompatible patch? Wouldn't it be wiser to balance the cars with all the bells and whistles implmented? To have a short test patch balancing era for few weeks before releasing the next incompatible patch? Maybe even some kind of small hotlapping competition to get the best times for few totally different tracks to make sure the cars are close? Winner gets Leo for a week or LX8 or something . Like a week or two to see that the cars are indeed close enough each others and make some small changes if not and then release the final new incompatible patch?
I am just wondering how useful it is to know how much ballast and restriction the FXO/FZR needs now when the car's CoG, tires and weight will change? Of course it is important to balance the cars now but if there are more serious improvements coming for the turbos and suspensions the balancing that is ongoing now (?) will be made void just because "the big factors weren't in?".
Again I'm telling the devs what to do () but to remind: the BF1 had the suspension damage "bug" which could have been "properly" fixed if the patch had been out as a test patch for a short while before making it public. And there was some small changes to the performance figures on some cars to balance the classes done in last incompatible patch (april 2006) but these changes didn't really change anything, except the stats shown in setup menus .
And as was pointed out earlier, most of LFS races are done on public servers on short races. Iirc the XRR and FZR were quite balanced in long races in Q version. The XRR needed less fuel but was slightly slower meaning that it would need less pitstops and shorter pitstops. But on public servers the FZR was the only winner, with equal drivers the FZR was always faster. With this in mind I ask, it is even possible to balance the classes on both short and long races? With current LFS we can't balance the cars with reliability, which is one way of balancing in the future when LFS has the support for it. To push the car all the time should increase the chance of mechanical failure (of some sort) and this could be used to make one car faster but less reliable. But, again, would it be possible to give one car a slight boost on performance and keep the class tight on both short and long races? I don't think so. Of course I'm not saying that there should not be any differences on reliability but reliability can't really be used as tool to balance short races.
Is the balance decision based on short races (4 laps with GTRs on KY3) or on long races >1 hour? I am not asking for answer, I am just saying that balancing for the long runs will unblanace the short runs. and balancing the short runs also keeps the long runs more balanced
None of this what I just wrote is not really very useful but I hope it gives new viewpoints and maybe new ideas for our devs
yes i agree but these 3 cars are totally different from eachothers so you can never get them within 0.1sec on all tracks. rb4 may dominate on shorter courses like SO3 sprint but if there is heavy accelerations and long straights xrt is gonna own there.
i just picked this track coz i had pretty good sets for all these cars plus there is tighter part of the track and then a long staight.
I may have been a bit unclear there when i said xrt is the dominant. but on bl1r it is I think.
Locations sorted from most to least advantage for FXO:
Kyoto (-2.27 avg)
Aston (-1.91 avg)
Westhill (-1.85 avg)
Fern Bay (-1.21 avg)
Blackwood (-1.00 avg)
South City (-0.70 avg)
Ok, I've been at it since my last post and I messed around with the TBO cars.
As per the DSC, I established a minimum weight for all three cars, 1300Kg. I then restricted the air intake to give them the same horsepower to weight ratio, 180bhp/ton. South City Classic was chosen for this test.
Best lap: - Race Time (3laps):
XRT: 55:82 - 2:55,79
FXO: 54:65 - 2:52,38
RB4: 55:82 - 2:56,70
I should also tell you that I usually don't drive the FXO that much since it's not a favourite car. It still ace this test by more than a second faster laptime. The above is the best times after driving 5 races each in each car to give them all an honest run. FXO is still to bleeding fast compared to the other two. Should also be said that I'm not teh fastest driver in the world, but I'm usually very consistant.
On South City Classic the three seems to be quite nicely balanced.
Been driving mostly the XRT, achieving lap time of 51.35 after several laps.
Did a quick try with the fxo also, only 25 laps and got 51.52.
I am not really experienced with fxo neither so in right hands I'd sugges it gets a low 51 at least.
Didn't try the rb4, but the fact it hasn't changed I can tell from the WR that it's good 51.3 to 51.6 in a quick race.
So on a track where both speed and cornering abilities matters, they seem to be quite nicely balanced for shorter races.
I have one question in regards to the car balancing:
Scawen has stated that the FXO will likely get a bit heavier and have narrower tires in the next big patch. However; since everyone is doing their balancing testing using the current (larger) tires, will all of this balancing be for naught once the tires are changed? If we eventually determine that the TBO class is "balanced" pretty well by adding X number of pounds to the FXO, what will happen when the next patch comes out and the FXO suddenly has tires that are 10% narrower? Won't we have to start this balancing act all over again?
Scawen said that his intention is to have classes balanced when a physics patch is released... however that's not always the case because of setups developing and so on, hence the master restrictions - they're just there in case the classes aren't balanced when the patch is first released. Any major physics change may essentially cause balancing to get messed up.
That's what I'm concerned about. I don't think the restrictions/ballast should be removed in the future, because they're very helpful for handicapping, if nothing else. I just think it's very likely that the community will figure out how to make the cars even, then we'll get another patch which gives the FXO narrower tires and puts us back to square one. Perhaps we need a patch with the new, skinnier tires on the FXO before we put too much effort into trying to balance the class?
The latter. The wheel figures are 85% of the engine figures for FWD and RWD cars, and 80% of the engine figures for AWD cars.
Scawen - this seems a somewhat odd tactic given you like to solve things the "proper way" where possible. IMO one large issue with the FXR and XRR is the turbo lag. Solve that and I'd expect the trio to get much closer without additional balancing (although I'm not saying that would be enough on it's own). ATM it's just frustrating to have massive AWD traction in the FXR but not actually be able to supply power to the wheels until the car is straight anyway, thus almost nullifying the traction advantage.
Cue-Ball I don't think they are going to get removed it after the in-compatable. From what Scawen was saying in this thread I now think the volentary weight and restrictor will remain and the global handicap will also remain. Scawen stated that he can change the global handicap in about 90 sec if there needs to be further tweaking down the road. By adding this system he has essentualy built in a way to allow for ongoing ballance without the need for a patch if more ballance is deamed nessasary.
In my testing with the AI I am finding the RB4 hhas the edge over the XRT by a small margin, and the FXO is still just too bloddy fast. I think most of the FXO's advantage at this point is its light weight and wide tires. It can still stop in less space and corner faster.
Bob I have to agree with you here, I never understood why the FXR and XRR did not also get a bigger more powerfull N/A engine instead of a bigger turbo. The reason I like the FZR so much is because of the lack of turbo lag and the lower torque. Its a peaky engine and I like those. Although there is a way to use the lag to your advantage. It just means you need to drive differently, for example get back on the gas earlier so that when you arrive at the place where you want power, you have it.
If things ran my way, we'll fix the turbo issues first before any serious balancing occurs.
Oh yeah, can't remember how many times in RB4/XFR, trying to exit the corner with a carefully exceuted full throttle blast in an attempt to gain maximum advantage from AWD traction, allowing one to exit as quickly as possible whilst drifting radially in a controlled fashion. Only to experience a major letdown thanks to ridiculous lag and even more ridiculous powerbands. For the RB4, we're better off making an exact numerical copy of the power/torqueband of a 90's 4G63 optimally tuned for 250 peak hp. Don't see how copyright would be an issue since the name "4G63" isn't used at all. Same for the XRT.
Or we could just plug in the engine from the RA into the RB4 and XRT, with some tweaks at the upper rev regions to get 250hp at 6500rpm instead of 245hp at around 5900rpm. Without the silly lag in turbo response, of course.
And when was the last time anyone saw a car like FXO (e.g. Honda Integra) with 250mm wide tires? No point trying to seriously balance the TBO class with this factor still within the equation. I'll rather have those tires reduced to say a more reasonable 235mm width before even considering serious attempts to balance the TBOs.
I'll like to leave the weight and intake restriction handicaps in, but will not force any of them on yet("global handicap"). The weight range adjustments seem fine, though the intake restrictions are frankly too ridiculous when adjusted to the greater levels. At 50% restriction (max), the TBOs manage to make just over 100hp. Tried that with the lowered gearing to suit and frankly there's no good reason to restrict them THAT far. What are we trying to do, race RB4s against XRs, XFs or even UF1s? There's no way to assign appropriate numbers to ballasts and intake restriction until hotlaps and long distance tests are run extensively. And I find it hard to take balancing too seriosuly when some major physics issues like turbo modelling remain. Oh hail the RA, needs about 3 seconds just to fully spool its tiny low boost turbo!
I agree with Jamexing. I think that global handicaps should just be left off until the turbo modeling and tires are taken care of. Fix those two things, then watch the STCC and MoE servers to see how the cars shake out. Then the devs can implement whatever global balancing is necessary to make the cars relatively even.
I will agree that the turbo physics and the fxo's changes need to be addressed before (or in tail with) any further balancing takes place. It is great to know that the balancing configurations can be worked rather easily in a couple of minutes. This is part of the reason why we can dial in the cars now, then allow for the suttle changes. After balancing the cars in the games current state, we will have a great base for the patch changes to come, and will only have to make slight adjustments to those cars changed.
If the fxo is getting heavier and skinnier tires, we can then lessen the ballast, and maybe lessen any intake restriction to bring it back even with the other TBO's. The other TBO cars will be already be balanced to each other respectively, and only the fxo will have to be brought back in to spec to the other TBO cars.
That being said, changing or, in better terms, FIXING the turbo physics will absolutely change every turbo car in the game. For the TBO cars, full boost should be acheived at highest around 3000rpm.... this is keeping in mind the average turbo size on a stock 2.0L (ish) turbocharged car. Right now it seems like each turbo car has a turbo 50% larger than what a stock car would have. In the RB4's case, full boost isnt reached until 5000+rpm! I imagine putting a diesel's big turbo into a inline 4 cylinder car with the wastegate set at .8bar. That motor will have a hell of a time spooling that turbo.
I think the turbo characteristics for the XRR and FXR are alright at best, again ofcourse it could use some tweaking. But you essentially have a race car runing nearly 2bar that would probably have a moderately large sized turbo, and you'd have to expect some lag. There are alot of factors that play a part in how fast a turbo will spool, including cam specifications, collector size and length, turbine size, backpressure, load, ambient air temperature, exhaust characteristics, ignition and fuel injection tuning, etc etc etc.
One small note that i'd like to mention, i have noticed in patch W10 that the shift light for the RB4 comes on alot later than it used to. I find the light coming on around 7000rpms, where it usually came on before in the low 6000s.... unless i am ofcourse imagining things
Another thing i'd like to add. If any of you have messed around with LFS TWEAK in patch V, you will notice the flaws in the current turbo -> engine physics, and how they relate and interact with eachother.
You can make an N/A V8 5.0L car with 500 hp/tq, in which the engine will perform a certain way.
Take that same configuration, throw in 45lbs of boost. Now, as all of you should know, in most turbo cars you can theoretically accelerate close to redline without entering into boost. So, in this situation you should be able to accelerate with a certain amount of throttle without boost to redline and acheive the same ammount of acceleration as you would with the same throttle position in the N/A version. It does not act the same. For some reason, even though the car does not enter boost, there is significantly and noticeably more power in the boosted car with NO boost, suggesting flaw somewhere in the equation.
Prior to positive boost, manifold pressure is still substantially higher in turbocharged cars than NA. The turbo is still pushing air around, it just hasn't reached the arbitrary line in the sand you're drawing, of positive boost.
You missed the point of global handicapping.. It's purpose is to keep the cars balanced before those things can be fixed. Global handicaps are just quick fixes to keep cars balanced untill the real fixes are made.
Some things need fixing and no doubt they will be fixed eventually, but why shouldn't we have equal cars in the meantime?
. Like a week or two to see that the cars are indeed close enough each others and make some small changes if not and then release the final new incompatible patch?
) but to remind: the BF1 had the suspension damage "bug" which could have been "properly" fixed if the patch had been out as a test patch for a short while before making it public. And there was some small changes to the performance figures on some cars to balance the classes done in last incompatible patch (april 2006) but these changes didn't really change anything, except the stats shown in setup menus 
There's no way to assign appropriate numbers to ballasts and intake restriction until hotlaps and long distance tests are run extensively. And I find it hard to take balancing too seriosuly when some major physics issues like turbo modelling remain. Oh hail the RA, needs about 3 seconds just to fully spool its tiny low boost turbo!