Discussion in 'Locations' started by Lou Is, Sep 11, 2015.
They did for me in the 91 F1 cars Kinda cool
I stated in post #51 an average of 2 meter long panel which is quite realistic (I just checked Atlanta, Portugal and Indianapolis and they range from 1 to 3 m).
Later in post #53 I wrote "several" which I reckon it could be misleading to think about a higher value.
Defining bumps with 2 m long panel can only provide a road waviness sensation (low frequency)
Imagine a car travelling at 50 mps over a "wavy" road where z coordinate would go up and down every 2 meters.
The "wavelength" would be 4 m and the frequency of the bumpiness would be 12,5 Hz (50 m / 4 m).
Hence, the actual mesh bumpiness cannot support bump frequencies higher than 12,5 Hz value (it will actually depend on car speed)
If you pick close turns where the panel length is smaller, the speed of the car would also be smaller providing a similar value.
I just checked with Motec and, as expected, the suspension position FFT only shows noticeable values for frequencies below 10-15 Hz.
I would expect a real track bumpiness to show noticeable components at higher frequencies.
For example road patches where z coordinate varies drastically a couple of mm at the frontier between the patch and the surrounding road.
However, I do not have a real telemetry to compare it with.
That's why I said that if ISI has checked that if microbumpiness frequencies above 10 Hz (now I can put a number) are neglectable then the simulation would be OK. If not they are simplifying it quite a lot (all ISI tracks have the same microbumpiness) and the hardcoded micrombumpiness is barely providing any effect at high frequencies
I have searched for some data about this and apparently (check the link below) there are components at high frequncies and differences can be seen in the graphs between rough and bumpy roads. I can see as well that the peak magnitude in rF2 telemetry are below 1 Hz which is not what is being shown in the PDF where the peak value looks to be in a higher frequency. If someone has better data it would fantastic if he could share it.
This track is great.....huge thanks to wizzfactor2 and Digga for their work. Much appreciated!!!
Finally got around to giving this a go, firstly it is a brilliantly put together track, right up there with the best. But a possible issue, I'm not seeing the AI use a BLOCK path at all, especially noticeable running down to Turn 9 (Hairpin) they just stick to the left. The FAST PATH is very good and just fine, can anyone confirm please? thanks
But wizzfactor2 says its his original and gave permission, confused ??
did you get my PM?
oh man i gotta see this!
Hi, can anyone help me with a re- upload?
Much love Bjorn.
a really good track, better than Melbourne in australia, but i haven't find a good car to race on it. the f1 are all lested and have the comportment of "fond de grille".
Just seen on Steam Workshop that this has been updated to v1.04 and includes a few fixes a long with AIW improvements (and BLOCK path!), thanks to the Track Modders for the update, racing tonight
I have v1.04 from February, 2016??? Non-Steam I mean.
aahh yeah sorry I was fooled as it came under "Most Recent" (someone must've added it) and read the 29/02 as 20/09, my bad!
The BLOCK path is non-existant at Turn 9, not sure if it's in Dev Mode but the AI don't do any blocking there whatsoever, so eerr yeah...that
OK anyway got it to load in Dev Mode and there is a BLOCK path but unfortunately it follows the Racing Line too much through most corners, it does move over before Turn 9 (Hairpin) but for whatever reason the AI don't use it, whether it's not connected properly somewhere or it's not over enough I'm not sure.
If I get time I'll have a play later in the week and try to figure it out as without the AI defending into the hairpin it makes racing them too easy, shame because this track rocks!
Hi one thing we noticed when racing on this track is that there is no tyre smoke from the cars?
Separate names with a comma.