I have found that when attempting to change the diveplanes on the DPi, the game does not include this in setup changes. I will select LDF under the chassis options, then save the setup. When I navigate back to the chassis options, it has reverted to a HDF selection. Images included below.
Hi, same here. After saving the change value ends up in in the Setup File: ... [LEFTFENDER] FenderFlareSetting=0//LDF [RIGHTFENDER] FenderFlareSetting=0//LDF When loading the Setup the config in the UI shows the default value. Same behavior happens lin the old UI. Regards Yoda
- In addition to the error in the saved aerodynamic adjustment and the subsequent loading of the setup that does not correspond, it also happens when you save the setup, it is not necessary to reload it, as soon as you give it to save it will put it again by default. The funny thing is that the svm file is saved correctly. - Should the fuel tank be 75 liters? - I also see that in the Antisway setting (Suspensions section), front and rear, the numbering is not correlative; I'm not sure what magnitude of values these are either, but they don't seem like the usual ones for other cars.
That is the Value in N/m, the Unit that rFactor 2 uses for it. And in the Skip Barber HDV it is explained with this Line: // Anti-sway rate to car center (asymmetric). This value should be half of what is provided in most car manuals (which generally use wheel to wheel rates)
So it would be correct to say: 33833 N/m is equivalent to 33.833 N/mm or 338.33 N/cm ?. The error here I think is the order of the values. In front Antisway the value 72569 is repeated, and also the first time it appears between 47562 and 58840, so I think there is an error. Also after 93564 appears 90221. The increments of the values are not kept. In rear Antisway, between 33343 and 33833 appears interleaved 39227. 84828 is also repeated and also has interleaved 62272. And I think this car has a few more bugs ... I'll keep testing
Yes. To check that, we would have to check the HDV or Upgrades.ini, depending on where the Entries are coming from. But since these Files are encrypted.... Maybe it's just a copy and paste Error of Special Entries.
Just to explain what redapg said a little more, modders can use 'Special' override parameters to define what each value in a range does, or how it's represented in the UI, and even make more other changes to the physics where appropriate. So it's possible, for example, that some specific bars are available that have different thicknesses but also mounting positions, and probably the intention is to show the names of those options rather than the underlying rates. Using those parameters you can put the various values in any order, and even completely misrepresent what each one is (no reason to do so, but just to illustrate the flexibility). The fact it seems to just be spitting out the N/m figures would suggest you're getting the true values (and not a deliberate text representation of each option, because you wouldn't go for something so raw), the repeats are curious but might be different thickness bars mounted via different points.
@Lazza Thanks Lazza. I often forget, that Things, that are taken for granted by long-Term rFactor Users are new to Newbies. So your additional Explanation is definitely helpful.
I am a normal user, I am not a racing engineer or a modder, and although I appreciate your explanations, the only thing that has become clear to me is that the Antisway values are in N / m, but the rest does not make sense to me: What does it matter where the bar is attached? At the user level, I understand that from the minimum value to the maximum the numbering maintains a correlative order, such as what appears in other cars, in order, 1-2-3-4-5., Without values, but it is assumed that If I start at 1 and increase that value, Antisway will get tougher, even if I don't know what values in N / m I'm applying. I think that is the logical thing to do, and in this case I think there is an error, if there are repeated or incorrectly interleaved values, could it be a typographical error? In Front Antisway, the repeated value 72569, which appears between 47562 and 58840, could be 52569 ?. When I first saw that interleaved value it is what I thought, a typographical error, and I assumed that this value was not correct when I saw that it was repeated afterwards. And in any case, if those values are correct, ignoring where the bar is attached, why repeat a value? I assume that the 2 repeated values give the same hardness, or am I wrong ?. Is there a way to verify these values with telemetry? After your explanations I am more confused than before and it makes me doubt if I am doing the wrong settings or the error is in the car. I do not know if I will be wrong, but this car appeared in rf2 at the end of 2020, I do not know if they took the example and the data of the 2019 season for this car (930 kg of weight and 69 L of fuel tank), but it seems to me that to At the beginning of 2020 the fuel tank was increased to 72 liters, later it increased 3 more liters and then I think IMSA took 1 liter from them. The weight also went up to 960, then dropped to 945, and I think for this year it will be 930 kg again. I have seen the GT3 and GTE do a lot of BOPs, but none of this car, although perhaps it does not need it because it has nothing to compare / compete with, since the Acura and Mazda are not there, but the error when saving the setting is still there. I think it would not cost too much to correct these errors.
A bar of a certain thickness with adjustable mounts near the end of the bar = X N/M. But a thinner bar with the mounts located in further can equal >X N/M (sue me if that should be n/m) Location of the mount AND the thickness of the bar determines the value. So if you have a choice of several bars, many of the values may seem to overlap depending upon where any particular bar is connected. The cars modeled by S397 rarely follow BOP changes for leagues such as IMSA or WEC. They produce a car from numbers obtained from teams and or builders and those items are rarely changed. BOP for rF2 USUALLY means the cars are balanced for online events, they do not care a fig about Solo play at this time. If we are really lucky, REALLLLLY lucky, we might see some solo AI improvements either the end of this year or well into next year.
I'll just simplify (hopefully) 2 things I said, to at clear those up (bear in mind none of us made the mod; we can't tell you exactly what's going on): The available options for a setup item can be set up by the modder (if desired) to be in any order, in no order, in 'random' order, with no pattern at all, or any combination of any of those. (can set a spring to have a sequence of 10, 20, 50, 30, 20, 5, 200, 2, for example) An ARB works by resisting twist along its length. By adjusting where its arms are mounted you can adjust how much torque is applied to it - just like having a bigger or smaller steering wheel will change the force required to turn it (or the forces it spits back out at you). It's quite possible a number of real-life options given have some duplicate values (it's easier to adjust a mounting position than to change out an entire bar, and some combinations of different bars at different positions may result in identical resistance), and if that's what's used in real life then that would make sense. So maybe there's no error, or maybe there is. We simply don't know.
Now I have understood your explanation better, and I suppose that it is more practical, in a real car, to change the position of the bar to modify its hardness than to have to change one bar for another, but this in the game is a "click", I haven't to disassemble or assemble anything, or get my hands dirty. If in real life there are values that give the same value because of the bar or its positioning, in the game they could have saved it and put only one of the values, and ordered, if it can be ... I also understand that the jump of values is not symmetric, for example: 100-158-211-247-..., it does not have to be 100-150-200-250 -..., I see that logical, but at least If the values are correlative, it would not seem correct to me to put 150-100-250-200 -..., or totally random. The capacity of fuel tank is something anecdotal, and even more so when this car, apparently, could end its life next year, I do not worry much As I see that this does not lead anywhere without being able to access the encrypted files and I imagine that those responsible will stay out of these disquisitions, I close the Antisway matter, thanking your explanations.
