[REL] 1957/1958 Vanwall VW5 + 1957 Maserati 250F T2
- Thread starter mantasisg
- Start date
mantasisg
Registered
The things I wrote there weren't entirely serious or true.
I do hope to get some good results, trying my best. And as long as there is ONE GUY appreaciating it, perhaps it is worth it. I used to have expectations for three, but I am down to one, good enough. Perhaps just not good enough for populating servers.
Currently I am on the struggle to achieve inside wheel up, as there are couple of pics from 57 and 58 wit hinside wheel up. Couldn't do it so far even with softest rear and hardest front. Looking for an issue. There are pictures of VW5 being raced in 1960 at Goodwood with inside wheel apparently up in the air almost always, they joked it they raced a three wheeler. At that time tires just simply must have had more grip, also it was written they had independent rear suspension for rear ready, but it was not used there. I think perhaps my car does drop already too much on the rear from its natural weight and fuel load, so because of that it rides bump stops too early and thus doesn't roll as much.
By the way, I think I will also be releasing 250F. But little later, because I know people will choose it over VW5, and I like VW5 better, because to me it is more exciting. But more people will prefer 250F having more freedom and comfort for sliding. Although it shouldn't be expected that it is some kind of drift misile, it is subtle too.
I do hope to get some good results, trying my best. And as long as there is ONE GUY appreaciating it, perhaps it is worth it. I used to have expectations for three, but I am down to one, good enough. Perhaps just not good enough for populating servers.
Currently I am on the struggle to achieve inside wheel up, as there are couple of pics from 57 and 58 wit hinside wheel up. Couldn't do it so far even with softest rear and hardest front. Looking for an issue. There are pictures of VW5 being raced in 1960 at Goodwood with inside wheel apparently up in the air almost always, they joked it they raced a three wheeler. At that time tires just simply must have had more grip, also it was written they had independent rear suspension for rear ready, but it was not used there. I think perhaps my car does drop already too much on the rear from its natural weight and fuel load, so because of that it rides bump stops too early and thus doesn't roll as much.
By the way, I think I will also be releasing 250F. But little later, because I know people will choose it over VW5, and I like VW5 better, because to me it is more exciting. But more people will prefer 250F having more freedom and comfort for sliding. Although it shouldn't be expected that it is some kind of drift misile, it is subtle too.
Emery
Registered
Play with the front sway bar rather than springs.
mantasisg
Registered
I wish it was that simple. There was clear lack of body roll from rear. Obviously the front wheel inside lifts up when there is big difference of body roll rear vs front, rear having much more. Another factors are things like limited wheel travel down, which might be due to stiff springs, or just bumpstops for rebound being hit on little travel. Sway bars primarily are there for controlling roll, but springs and dampers also does that.
Car was about there ready for release today, it was just this problem clearly indicating something not being correct. The feel and driving experience was excelent in my opinion. Although more testing needed.
There was another thing though. Car seemed to be little too slow in Monaco. This suggested it might be a good decision to try increasing slow to medium speeds sliding friction. Don't think about it only as pure sliding, but also as a component of tire grip at the limit with large amounts of slip angle/ratio.
That didn't help to make inside wheel go up, and I wasn't willing to increase grip more, in fact Iwould like it reduce a little perhaps in the middle of where it was vs now.
I have tried lots of things and their combinations front vs rear:
Packers, springs, dampers, sway bars, bumpstops, bumpstops travels, pushrods definded well. I have tried elevating center of gravity height, obviously this car must have it higher, with driver sitting more than 20cm higher than "ideal", and the car is a little larger than others in size.
Anything done only made it more clear that the roll at the rear end just isn't happening. Before that I had extremely mild success with rising center of mass height to 1920s levels lol, and limiting wheel travels super strictly.
The wheel started moving up once I have dropped tracking bar 20centimeters bellow axle. Which is wrong, in some available pictures axle is shown to use Watts linkage, with pivot point in the middle. It should be on axle height, now it is close to the ground. Even with this and super softly set rear end, the rear roll is not as huge as I would expect.
Not commented pic. I think this has to be from 1957 ? What track is it ?
Result from my battle today:
I still have one thing to try. I might add full and empty fuel tank position lines, rising full fuel tank up and pushing it more backwards. Besides that also will try torque distribution line for fuel tank. I suppose that should send more roll to rear and that should be correct.
Tomorrow.
Ofcourse this front wheel lifting thing was a novelty that only can be spoted in two pictures from 57/58, as much as I have seen. But it does highlight rear end body roll being more active. And also fits in with numerous pictures of this car understeering, which was prefered way to handle it, as oversteer was bit risky.
Car was about there ready for release today, it was just this problem clearly indicating something not being correct. The feel and driving experience was excelent in my opinion. Although more testing needed.
There was another thing though. Car seemed to be little too slow in Monaco. This suggested it might be a good decision to try increasing slow to medium speeds sliding friction. Don't think about it only as pure sliding, but also as a component of tire grip at the limit with large amounts of slip angle/ratio.
That didn't help to make inside wheel go up, and I wasn't willing to increase grip more, in fact Iwould like it reduce a little perhaps in the middle of where it was vs now.
I have tried lots of things and their combinations front vs rear:
Packers, springs, dampers, sway bars, bumpstops, bumpstops travels, pushrods definded well. I have tried elevating center of gravity height, obviously this car must have it higher, with driver sitting more than 20cm higher than "ideal", and the car is a little larger than others in size.
Anything done only made it more clear that the roll at the rear end just isn't happening. Before that I had extremely mild success with rising center of mass height to 1920s levels lol, and limiting wheel travels super strictly.
The wheel started moving up once I have dropped tracking bar 20centimeters bellow axle. Which is wrong, in some available pictures axle is shown to use Watts linkage, with pivot point in the middle. It should be on axle height, now it is close to the ground. Even with this and super softly set rear end, the rear roll is not as huge as I would expect.
Not commented pic. I think this has to be from 1957 ? What track is it ?
Result from my battle today:
I still have one thing to try. I might add full and empty fuel tank position lines, rising full fuel tank up and pushing it more backwards. Besides that also will try torque distribution line for fuel tank. I suppose that should send more roll to rear and that should be correct.
Tomorrow.
Ofcourse this front wheel lifting thing was a novelty that only can be spoted in two pictures from 57/58, as much as I have seen. But it does highlight rear end body roll being more active. And also fits in with numerous pictures of this car understeering, which was prefered way to handle it, as oversteer was bit risky.
I'm really looking forward to trying your next cars.
I've been using the simulator very little these past few months, but just today, I've used all your cars apart from the MX5.
What a pleasure, honestly.
I've defined for each car which FFB multi to use, in order to have the best experience with a minimum of clipping in normal driving conditions.
I think it will greatly improve my experience with these cars, now that an appropriate number has been defined.
Also, I realized today that I subconsciously used some of these great cars little, due to a frustration I had without realizing it, concerning the gear change.
I am aware that the different values corresponding to the gearbox in the HDV are ultra realistic, and that you have defined a perfectly appropriate baulk torque value to best simulate the gear change, but I had a big frustration without realizing, which cited me to use little it's a great car.
So I committed a heresy, I spent some time modifying the corresponding values, I think 5 values at the time, it is quite fast if you do not recreate a package file (when you start the game, it makes a brief update on the cars concerned).
I must say that passing this frustration, in particular by increasing the value of baulk torque, I was able to really enjoy these cars to the fullest, and it was great.
I am aware that the simulation of the gear change is incorrect, but this sacrifice seems acceptable to me given that I can now enjoy these cars with great pleasure and without frustration.
I've been using the simulator very little these past few months, but just today, I've used all your cars apart from the MX5.
What a pleasure, honestly.
I've defined for each car which FFB multi to use, in order to have the best experience with a minimum of clipping in normal driving conditions.
I think it will greatly improve my experience with these cars, now that an appropriate number has been defined.
Also, I realized today that I subconsciously used some of these great cars little, due to a frustration I had without realizing it, concerning the gear change.
I am aware that the different values corresponding to the gearbox in the HDV are ultra realistic, and that you have defined a perfectly appropriate baulk torque value to best simulate the gear change, but I had a big frustration without realizing, which cited me to use little it's a great car.
So I committed a heresy, I spent some time modifying the corresponding values, I think 5 values at the time, it is quite fast if you do not recreate a package file (when you start the game, it makes a brief update on the cars concerned).
I must say that passing this frustration, in particular by increasing the value of baulk torque, I was able to really enjoy these cars to the fullest, and it was great.
I am aware that the simulation of the gear change is incorrect, but this sacrifice seems acceptable to me given that I can now enjoy these cars with great pleasure and without frustration.
mantasisg
Registered
Maybe it is ok as long as you even use clutch at all. I have been in a league, which supposed to be historic racing enthusiasts, almost all not using clutch at all. If that is exciting experience for some, then, I guess, have fun. To me thats like giving away 30% of fun, for 2% of control gain, which you would get anyway if you just driven a little more.
And we have it easy eitherway. IRL, this Vanwall as example, had rather tough to handle gearbox.
And we have it easy eitherway. IRL, this Vanwall as example, had rather tough to handle gearbox.
Seven Smiles
Registered
I found the photo and this title but not together "Stirling Moss in typical action at the 1957 British Grand Prix in the Vanwall" which would make it Aintree.
@mantasisg
Yes, I use the clutch and the associated techniques (heel-toe).
Set like this, I keep the controls and techniques associated with the gearbox and the clutch, but the manual gearbox no longer simulates a low-performance or old gearbox, but a relatively efficient manual gearbox.
On the other hand, there is no question of touching the dynamic behavior of your great cars, and therefore 0% of the other physical data of your cars.
Even if I said it 20 times... too bad I repeat myself, but damn, your cars have impressive physics, seeming as close to real as possible, I love it!
Yes, I use the clutch and the associated techniques (heel-toe).
Set like this, I keep the controls and techniques associated with the gearbox and the clutch, but the manual gearbox no longer simulates a low-performance or old gearbox, but a relatively efficient manual gearbox.
On the other hand, there is no question of touching the dynamic behavior of your great cars, and therefore 0% of the other physical data of your cars.
Even if I said it 20 times... too bad I repeat myself, but damn, your cars have impressive physics, seeming as close to real as possible, I love it!
mantasisg
Registered
@pilAUTO Thank you. I hope you'll like Vanwall. I think it is great car, and I am pleased with how its Dunlop tires are. I expect to release within days. Then will continue on 250F. And will eventually update Cooper T43/45, which also is on Dunlops like VW5, although little differnt.
You also mentioned you altered ffb nominal values, what cars FFB was clipping ? I use T300 wheel at 85% gain ,works well to me. Maybe just occasiobal very minor clipping occurs.
You also mentioned you altered ffb nominal values, what cars FFB was clipping ? I use T300 wheel at 85% gain ,works well to me. Maybe just occasiobal very minor clipping occurs.
Knowing my steering wheel perfectly, and using rfactor 2 for 12 years now exclusively, I allowed myself this time due to lack of patience to make the adjustments without tiny pedal which can be adjusted extremely effectively to see the clipping in real time with visibility over about fifty seconds and in a precise manner.
Ditto, I did not use damplugin.
I give you my values (8 nm CSL DD steering wheel), but it is extremely important to take into account the fact that I voluntarily only use offline scripter sessions with a temperature of only 1 degree which is extremely little, and with a completely green track.
For your cars, I make very few adjustments, none that should fundamentally affect the grip on the setup page.
Here are the values, it is not impossible that there is clipping, even very likely in normal driving conditions, but not clipping that I would call annoying:
W125 84cm rear wheel = 95%
911S stock 300 HP narrow experimental tyre = 125%
911 RSR low classic tyre 380 HP steering rack standard = 95%
t43/t45 200hp = 100%
D50 (rwd pirelli) = 65%
XJ13 = 100%.
The values seem extremely high, but in terms of feeling it corresponds well to what I imagine with this kind of car, and in terms of maximum force, it corresponds to what I get approximately with a btcc s397 around say 75% of ffb multi.
But honestly, I only used my fairly high experience in the matter, but not the mathematics or the use of serious software...
I bet that I have a little clipping in normal driving conditions in all cars!
But it suits me perfectly, that's why I chose this setting.
Seven Smiles
Registered
Seven Smiles
Registered
mantasisg
Registered
I am so close to release. I have decided to add as an upgrade option for rear with much lower rear center, it makes car much better for tight and bumpy tracks like Monaco or Sebring. And lifting inside wheel happens, which just has to. I have considered idea to do what Niels Heusinkveld did with his 250F car for AMS, he made several unique chassies with slightly different physics, this would be highly realistic for Vanwall VW1-10 too. But not doing that now, just an option or a few through upgrades. I think it could have easily been that some cars used some attachment/pivot point for watts linkage or some other thing that could have lowered rear roll center.
My only issue was yesterday that I didn't enjoy high rear roll center chassis as much as before, I have to investigate if it was really spoiled or was it just perception because I was tired and it was late - it does sometimes happen, cars starts feeling worse because of it.
@Seven Smiles It does look like 99% it might be that location. WIll have to test it there, although mod feels to me like it lacks grip or cambers in road or both. In that screenshot you give, this lotus also looks like it rolls similarly.
It doesn't show the place, but there is this nice video:
@pilAUTO I also think that little bit clipping is not a bad thing, when there is too much too much you know it. These cars steerign feel changes quite obviously as grip increases, even with my 4Nm T300 of which I use 85%. Cars like Porsche also has quick/slow steering options, quicker is heavier because steering ratio is larger. In Lancia for example you can lighten the steering and make it less sensitive by slowing it by reducing steering lock, it means now same steering wheel rotation steers tires for less degrees, meaning it is lighter. D50 by default definitely has too much steering lock.
I did not quite understand though @pilAUTO those percentages means percentages as per in options of rF2, or does these mean for example D50 100%+65%, or is it just 100%-35% ?
My only issue was yesterday that I didn't enjoy high rear roll center chassis as much as before, I have to investigate if it was really spoiled or was it just perception because I was tired and it was late - it does sometimes happen, cars starts feeling worse because of it.
@Seven Smiles It does look like 99% it might be that location. WIll have to test it there, although mod feels to me like it lacks grip or cambers in road or both. In that screenshot you give, this lotus also looks like it rolls similarly.
It doesn't show the place, but there is this nice video:
@pilAUTO I also think that little bit clipping is not a bad thing, when there is too much too much you know it. These cars steerign feel changes quite obviously as grip increases, even with my 4Nm T300 of which I use 85%. Cars like Porsche also has quick/slow steering options, quicker is heavier because steering ratio is larger. In Lancia for example you can lighten the steering and make it less sensitive by slowing it by reducing steering lock, it means now same steering wheel rotation steers tires for less degrees, meaning it is lighter. D50 by default definitely has too much steering lock.
I did not quite understand though @pilAUTO those percentages means percentages as per in options of rF2, or does these mean for example D50 100%+65%, or is it just 100%-35% ?
@mantasisg
On rF2, I think there is a global FFB strength setting (I leave it at 100%), and a setting per car (and per skin), which I systematically adjust (if necessary).
The percentage values I gave you correspond to the setting per car (and per skin), knowing that I leave the global setting at 100%.
On rF2, I think there is a global FFB strength setting (I leave it at 100%), and a setting per car (and per skin), which I systematically adjust (if necessary).
The percentage values I gave you correspond to the setting per car (and per skin), knowing that I leave the global setting at 100%.
mantasisg
Registered
Delaying again a little, till I am pleased with car. Setback happens again, because car was off pace in few tracks too much, at first I thought these might be because of tracks, and for example I suspected old Spa by ISI to be slightly too slow for a long time, but I was also a bit too slow in Monza. In Aintree too, Aintree is actually not that bad mod, after driving there more, I think it is alright, it might be by itself just a little too slow though. Will see once I am on right Pace at Monza. I was good pace at Monaco for 1957, as well as for Pescara and Nurburgring, almost properly fast at Rouen. Forgot Zandvoort. I was doing correct laptimes in Goodwood.
In 1958 laptimes are quite faster. Can be easily seen through laptimes at Monza and Monaco. Despite car being run on little lower power. Then I realised that in 1958 length of grand prix races were reduced, so very likely they, very likely made by Dunlop, could have been using softer compound grippier tires. I have not read about it anywhere, but I think it would have happened naturally. Monaco in 1958 still took almost three hours for some reason.
So I am adding as upgrade 1958 tire. I prefer 1957 tire, it will be default. Dunlop also started using nylon instead of cotton at that time, and tires got lighter by more than 5kg.
And funny bit, showing how AI is not an ultimate source for information, everyone know it but still:
In 1958 laptimes are quite faster. Can be easily seen through laptimes at Monza and Monaco. Despite car being run on little lower power. Then I realised that in 1958 length of grand prix races were reduced, so very likely they, very likely made by Dunlop, could have been using softer compound grippier tires. I have not read about it anywhere, but I think it would have happened naturally. Monaco in 1958 still took almost three hours for some reason.
So I am adding as upgrade 1958 tire. I prefer 1957 tire, it will be default. Dunlop also started using nylon instead of cotton at that time, and tires got lighter by more than 5kg.
And funny bit, showing how AI is not an ultimate source for information, everyone know it but still:
Last edited:
mantasisg
Registered
Once I have added 1958 tires, which has much more grip, suddently inside wheel is lifting comically high, it was quick like that though, 1'39'6. From that I have decided to lift rear roll center a little, and adjust tire grip in a way it would specifically affect track like Monaco.
Here is rimblur issue at display, I have for the first time saw it happening in devmode too, although it was just one time out of hundreds of drives, while in main game it is every other time. I have decided to increase speed blur effects activates at, to have less damage for the mod. I don't want to cancel blur effect entirelly.
Few normal pictures. Monaco with 1958 tire was very fun, but it is fun with 1957 tire too.
I did 1'39'6 with normal rear roll center too, so it is mostly up to tire.
Here is rimblur issue at display, I have for the first time saw it happening in devmode too, although it was just one time out of hundreds of drives, while in main game it is every other time. I have decided to increase speed blur effects activates at, to have less damage for the mod. I don't want to cancel blur effect entirelly.
Few normal pictures. Monaco with 1958 tire was very fun, but it is fun with 1957 tire too.
I did 1'39'6 with normal rear roll center too, so it is mostly up to tire.
mantasisg
Registered
Apparently Zolder track is aimed to be released today, so again I will not be releasing this car, because it is not a car that you will probably take to Zolder. Although perhaps it would work.
Although I can't call it version 1.0, there are certainly bits and pieces that could be added and improved. But for most part, and for what I look for it feels close to complete for now. I did Modern Historics car too anyway, although I know it spoils it little bit, because some people surely skips the real stuff for little bit more grip.... at least you use clutches and H shifters, right, right.... ? You are doing good.
I found tire for modern historics version not to be siginificantly improved from actual 1958 Dunlop R5. Most significant change to it is perhaps reduce of load sensitivity. Most significant change is that engine has more power.
I have also turned on to work on 250F. I have added basically unchanged Lancia D50 Pirelli tire. And the car just handles so much more friendly, and easier than D50 as it is much more accepting slides. However, there is other slightly faster compound by default, which I assume would have been so few years later. It ofcourse still handles wonderful. I have even got it too good, up to a point I was doing laptimes in Goodwood one after another which were close to the limit and all within 0.1s from one another, then I knew it is perhaps a little too easy. While it would be something up to low standard of current simracing as found in some popular simulations sometimes, to me thats just killed emotions, beauty and poetry of a car. So I took away little bit of sliding performance from top end of temperatures, increased slightly load sensitivity and very slightly reduced peak sliding friction. That worked and car felt more nuanced and subtle, while still remained easy, just now what was 0.1s range of consistency in laps, become 0.3s. The 250F is indeed wonderfully handling car, I quickly did modern historic versio ntoo with few small changes and pretty much gave it modern historic Dunlop R5 straight from Vanwall, and Maserati just handles so much nicer than VW5. Although to me Vanwall is special in its own way, but it is definitely less chill on the limit. Maserati 250F can sometimes be a little deceiving, as it seems so easy, but if you go slightly too far with it, or start disrespectfully loose concentration very high chances you will have an issue.
Although I can't call it version 1.0, there are certainly bits and pieces that could be added and improved. But for most part, and for what I look for it feels close to complete for now. I did Modern Historics car too anyway, although I know it spoils it little bit, because some people surely skips the real stuff for little bit more grip.... at least you use clutches and H shifters, right, right.... ? You are doing good.
I found tire for modern historics version not to be siginificantly improved from actual 1958 Dunlop R5. Most significant change to it is perhaps reduce of load sensitivity. Most significant change is that engine has more power.
I have also turned on to work on 250F. I have added basically unchanged Lancia D50 Pirelli tire. And the car just handles so much more friendly, and easier than D50 as it is much more accepting slides. However, there is other slightly faster compound by default, which I assume would have been so few years later. It ofcourse still handles wonderful. I have even got it too good, up to a point I was doing laptimes in Goodwood one after another which were close to the limit and all within 0.1s from one another, then I knew it is perhaps a little too easy. While it would be something up to low standard of current simracing as found in some popular simulations sometimes, to me thats just killed emotions, beauty and poetry of a car. So I took away little bit of sliding performance from top end of temperatures, increased slightly load sensitivity and very slightly reduced peak sliding friction. That worked and car felt more nuanced and subtle, while still remained easy, just now what was 0.1s range of consistency in laps, become 0.3s. The 250F is indeed wonderfully handling car, I quickly did modern historic versio ntoo with few small changes and pretty much gave it modern historic Dunlop R5 straight from Vanwall, and Maserati just handles so much nicer than VW5. Although to me Vanwall is special in its own way, but it is definitely less chill on the limit. Maserati 250F can sometimes be a little deceiving, as it seems so easy, but if you go slightly too far with it, or start disrespectfully loose concentration very high chances you will have an issue.
Last edited: