Slip_Angel
Registered
for all cars Is downforce reductions at front side or rear side ?
Released GTE BOP - September 2020
- Thread starter Christopher Elliott
- Start date
Liuke44
Registered
in my opinion the caster angle of the Ferrari has also changed. in fact the steering is much softer confirm @Christopher Elliott?
Risto Kappet
Registered
I can confirm your feelings - with the same FFB settings, the FFB output reading is lower. See graph below - green is old, white is new.
Andrei Muscala
Registered
Only the top decreased. The bottom increased. Would higher caster be the cause?
John R Denman
Registered
My apologies if you took that as a condescending note, that certainly wasn't the intent.
The question was intended to see if its worth rebuilding a setup tutorial for the community.
About ten years ago I ran a pretty active league with rfactor, and still have the domain rfactor-league.com. In 2017 the server was shut down and I only moved one of the 4 websites that were hosted although rfactor-league.com is pointed to the new server, just none of the content.
One of the chapters contained a Setup Guide composed in Macromedia Flash to produce a set of interactive screens between the Garage settings for each tab. In effect it looked like a Garage session and with a Mouseover event opened a dialog box that explained the effects of every setting, even included some video of how the effect worked. I also had a site racecartuner.com entirely in Flash, with active graphics to demonstrate handling and tuning response; that domain has been released.
I may be compelled to resurrect and completely revise rfactor-league.com tutorials. It won't happen overnight if I do, probably over the next year. So my intent is just to get a feel if that time spent, probably on the order of 1000 hours is worth the effort. Thats the guy I am.
doddynco
Registered
This is good to see as the cars were always clipping with a 1.0x ffb multiplier. It looks like the caster is unchanged judging by this log. If the caster angle was lower, i'd expect a more spikey signal relative to its amplitude. The seem to have just reduced the ffb signal amplitude.
Last edited:
Risto Kappet
Registered
Whether its clipping or not really depends on a number of things and drivers hardware settings too, on some wheels 1.0x is normally too little, on some its too much.
Also the reason these lines are not too spikey are because I applied a 21 sample filter for viewing and comparing pleasure. In reality it is indeed much more jagged.
doddynco
Registered
There are two clipping stages: software, and then driver/firmware/hardware. It can be clipping inside RF2 and be nowhere near clipping the hardware, and vice versa. You can only see the software clipping by using a plugin.
The amendment they've made has reduced software clipping and that can only be a good thing, as these cars were always hitting the in-game software clip.
Slip_Angel
Registered
Is aerodynamic adjustment related to physics or this is done for BoP ?
I wouldn't like if they artificially changing aero physics just to balance out the cars. I don't think IRL BoP adjustment includes increasing or decreasing aero,adding drag etc.
There are ride height rules.
I wouldn't like if they artificially changing aero physics just to balance out the cars. I don't think IRL BoP adjustment includes increasing or decreasing aero,adding drag etc.
There are ride height rules.
Last edited:
Will Mazeo
Registered
Cover the costs of some wind tunnel time for every GT3 car IRL that is present in rF2 and you may get values accurate enough to stop them from messing with it
Slip_Angel
Registered
I'm not against messing with values etc.Cover the costs of some wind tunnel time for every GT3 car IRL that is present in rF2 and you may get values accurate enough to stop them from messing with it
What i do mind is changing the real data (which i assume is provided by manufacturers ) to balance out the racing.
That is the question i'm asking,is this change in aero value is according to data provided by real manufacturers or just artificial BoP.
davehenrie
Registered
BOP by it's nature is artificial. How else can a lumbering hulk like a Bentley compete vs a Ferrari or Mclaren? Unfortunately we live in an era when close competition is preferred vs exciting, exotic steps forward.
Will Mazeo
Registered
Manufacturers won't give you all data because you paid a license. Plus no matter how good a sim is it's not accurate enough, changing values to get approximated results is necessary.
Slip_Angel
Registered
Yes i understand that. But that is not my point.All i want to know is that some changes in above post are related to car physics but they are tagged together with BoP changes.
Does this mean that cars in RF2 are balanced by actually changing their physics ?
How can a BoP change downforce WITHOUT changing in ride height rules ?
How do you even add drag with BoP ?
see my point? changes made to car aero behaviour are physics related,BoP is different.
But title only states BoP update.
Slip_Angel
Registered
Yes that i know, but please try to understand. All i want to know is this manipulation of data because it gives realistic car physics OR is it because of BoP ?
Is it like changing aero physics of cars so that they race closer to each other ?? This is what i'm concerned about.
Last edited:
Slip_Angel
Registered
To add to my concern, if you see in this post->>
https://forum.studio-397.com/index.php?threads/latest-content-updates-includes-bop-gte.66495/
All cars have minimum ride height of 50mm... now take a search on google on BoP on GT3 ,GTE(if possible) you will see that every car has different ride height set by rules WHY ? because
A.To limit the downforce,as some cars will generate more downforce at given ride height but other might not generate same downforce at same ride height.
B.For safety so that cars don't bottom out
Now take a look at ACC ride height setup menu, each car in background running ride height set by BoP.
On screen you get ride height measurements from wheel contact point even still all the GT cars have different minimum ride heights.
https://forum.studio-397.com/index.php?threads/latest-content-updates-includes-bop-gte.66495/
All cars have minimum ride height of 50mm... now take a search on google on BoP on GT3 ,GTE(if possible) you will see that every car has different ride height set by rules WHY ? because
A.To limit the downforce,as some cars will generate more downforce at given ride height but other might not generate same downforce at same ride height.
B.For safety so that cars don't bottom out
Now take a look at ACC ride height setup menu, each car in background running ride height set by BoP.
On screen you get ride height measurements from wheel contact point even still all the GT cars have different minimum ride heights.
Last edited:
Will Mazeo
Registered
That's fine, I just dont get why the concern at this point. I mean... many other issues have showed the cars under S397 are weird and need to be remade, people should be used to it already
This has been brought up in Discord quite a few times (yes, contrary to what some people say the talk there is not only about pizza and wrestling 24/7)
Slip_Angel
Registered
I don't want to start any kind of hate.
I genuinely want to know how this is implemented, i'm in the minority i guess. For me simulator is only about vehicles simulation not racing.
I will honestly buy a simulator with only practice mode but extremely complex vehicles dynamics.
For me it is only about driving ,if i see something fishy about car physics related i can't stop thinking about it.
Hence i seek help/answer in the forums.
With all being said overall the cars i bought are top notch with room for improvements.
Which dev is responsible for car physics? maybe i can ask him (if he is free to answer of course)
Last edited:
Sebastian Pfeiffer
Registered
Hello,
after the last BoP Update myself together with a team mate did some tests regarding acceleration and fuel consumption with the GTE cars. In order to help improve the BoP, I share the findings in this post. This mainly concerns long distance races like done in VEC, P1LMS and other leagues with several hours of race length.
How did we carry the tests out? (skip if you just want to see the results)
The results:
Observations:
So, let's start with the positives:
After the last BoP update the Aston Martin, BMW and Porsche are very well matched to each other.
The acceleration is pretty much identical. Short shifting or changing engine mapping have pretty similar consequences on acceleration and fuel usage.
Fuel tank is identical at 100 litres so refueling time is identical aswell.
I don't see anything that needs to be done to these 3 cars relative to each other!
Now let's look at Ferrari and Corvette:
Both are approx. 0,075 seconds faster than the other cars on the said 500 metres.
For the best acceleration you don't rev out the Ferrari completly, but short shift significantly (see cells marked red). In doing so, the Ferrari is not only faster than the other cars, but also has a lot better fuel range.
About 4% better than AM, BMW, Porsche, that are already slower, and about 5% better than the Corvette, that is equally fast.
On an average track (1:30 min to 2:00 min length in lap time), this means, the Ferrari can extend the stint length by 1 or 2 laps (while being quicker on the straights).
Additionally you can increase the fuel saving a lot (Race lean + shifting at 85% of max. rpm) and still be on par in straight line performance with the other cars (except Corvette).
This can save you easily a pit stop in a long distance race, which equates to 0,75 lap to 1 lap (that is a lot).
Another view to look at it: If the Ferrari is going as fast as it can and you want to reach the same range as the Ferrari you will lose 1,1 to 1,4 tenths in the 500 metre straight (see last 2 columns and cells marked yellow). I gather you have approx. 3 or 4 of these kind of accelerations zones in a lap. This means one loses about 5 tenths per lap with fuel saving compared to the Ferrari (that is a lot aswell).
What about the Corvette? Well, it is basically somewhere between the Ferrari and the other 3 cars. It is as fast as the Ferrari in a straight line while using 5% more fuel. Fuel saving can be done quite well (not as well as with Ferrari, but better than the others).
Due to the smaller fuel tank the Ferrari saves 3 seconds each stop and Corvette 1,5 seconds compared to the other cars.
Conclusion:
As already said, Aston Martin, BMW and Porsche are very well matched. There are slight differences, but I don't think any adjustments are necessary.
The Ferrari has a huge advantage, because of the fuel consumption. It doesn't matter which way you put it, but the longer the race, the greater the advantage the Ferrari has and it is significant. I would expect a further BoP update regarding this issue in the near future. (my advise would be somewhere around +6% with 90l fuel tank)
I think the Corvette should be adjusted in a similar manner, but the changes necessary are smaller compared to the Ferrari. (maybe around 4% with 95l fuel tank. Bit difficult to say as Corvette doesn't use less fuel, but it is faster on the straight and pretty easy to fuel save - maybe better to rob 5 hp or so)
General advise: (this has nothing to do with the rF2 GTE cars in specific)
As far as I know, the formula rFactor uses for calculating the fuel consumption is:
engine speed X filtered throttle position X car-dependent factor
The data suggests this assumption aswell (or at least it is not far off).
The reason Ferrari and Corvette can save fuel that well, lies probably in this formula in combination with a very torquey power curve (lots of power already in the low/middle rev range). You can short shift these cars, which will save you a lot of fuel, while not losing a lot of straight line speed.
In my eyes a better and maybe even simpler way to calculate fuel consumption would be using
engine power output X car-dependent factor
Fuel consumption in kg/h basically is proportional to the power output. The only influencing factor is the engine efficiency, which is dependent on a number of factors, but for a race car, which is mostly driven with full throttle and in a quite narrow engine speed range a simple car-dependent factor is a near enough approximation in my view.
Short shifting the Ferrari or Corvette would then mean, that you still wouldn't lose a lot of straight line speed, but you also wouldn't save as much fuel as is the case at the moment.
Finally a real virutal world example from VEC: There was a Ferrari team doing 38 laps on one stint of fuel at the preseason race at Imola. This was probably done with quite a bit of fuel saving. But several other Ferraris did 37 laps. We ran the Porsche and already had to do a bit of fuel saving to reach 35 laps, which were necessary for not having to do a second fuel stop in the 2h race. The fastest GTE of all in the 3 divisions was a Corvette doing 37 laps with one fuel tank.
(can't upload .xlsx-file to the forum, if developers are interested in the raw data, I can supply the file however. But basically the screenshot shows the important bits anyways)
Hope this post helps in finetuning the GTE class, which since the last update already is on quite a high level regarding BoP in my view - with the exception of the fuel consumption of these 2 cars.
Cheers
Seb
after the last BoP Update myself together with a team mate did some tests regarding acceleration and fuel consumption with the GTE cars. In order to help improve the BoP, I share the findings in this post. This mainly concerns long distance races like done in VEC, P1LMS and other leagues with several hours of race length.
How did we carry the tests out? (skip if you just want to see the results)
The results:
Observations:
So, let's start with the positives:
After the last BoP update the Aston Martin, BMW and Porsche are very well matched to each other.
The acceleration is pretty much identical. Short shifting or changing engine mapping have pretty similar consequences on acceleration and fuel usage.
Fuel tank is identical at 100 litres so refueling time is identical aswell.
I don't see anything that needs to be done to these 3 cars relative to each other!
Now let's look at Ferrari and Corvette:
Both are approx. 0,075 seconds faster than the other cars on the said 500 metres.
For the best acceleration you don't rev out the Ferrari completly, but short shift significantly (see cells marked red). In doing so, the Ferrari is not only faster than the other cars, but also has a lot better fuel range.
About 4% better than AM, BMW, Porsche, that are already slower, and about 5% better than the Corvette, that is equally fast.
On an average track (1:30 min to 2:00 min length in lap time), this means, the Ferrari can extend the stint length by 1 or 2 laps (while being quicker on the straights).
Additionally you can increase the fuel saving a lot (Race lean + shifting at 85% of max. rpm) and still be on par in straight line performance with the other cars (except Corvette).
This can save you easily a pit stop in a long distance race, which equates to 0,75 lap to 1 lap (that is a lot).
Another view to look at it: If the Ferrari is going as fast as it can and you want to reach the same range as the Ferrari you will lose 1,1 to 1,4 tenths in the 500 metre straight (see last 2 columns and cells marked yellow). I gather you have approx. 3 or 4 of these kind of accelerations zones in a lap. This means one loses about 5 tenths per lap with fuel saving compared to the Ferrari (that is a lot aswell).
What about the Corvette? Well, it is basically somewhere between the Ferrari and the other 3 cars. It is as fast as the Ferrari in a straight line while using 5% more fuel. Fuel saving can be done quite well (not as well as with Ferrari, but better than the others).
Due to the smaller fuel tank the Ferrari saves 3 seconds each stop and Corvette 1,5 seconds compared to the other cars.
Conclusion:
As already said, Aston Martin, BMW and Porsche are very well matched. There are slight differences, but I don't think any adjustments are necessary.
The Ferrari has a huge advantage, because of the fuel consumption. It doesn't matter which way you put it, but the longer the race, the greater the advantage the Ferrari has and it is significant. I would expect a further BoP update regarding this issue in the near future. (my advise would be somewhere around +6% with 90l fuel tank)
I think the Corvette should be adjusted in a similar manner, but the changes necessary are smaller compared to the Ferrari. (maybe around 4% with 95l fuel tank. Bit difficult to say as Corvette doesn't use less fuel, but it is faster on the straight and pretty easy to fuel save - maybe better to rob 5 hp or so)
General advise: (this has nothing to do with the rF2 GTE cars in specific)
As far as I know, the formula rFactor uses for calculating the fuel consumption is:
engine speed X filtered throttle position X car-dependent factor
The data suggests this assumption aswell (or at least it is not far off).
The reason Ferrari and Corvette can save fuel that well, lies probably in this formula in combination with a very torquey power curve (lots of power already in the low/middle rev range). You can short shift these cars, which will save you a lot of fuel, while not losing a lot of straight line speed.
In my eyes a better and maybe even simpler way to calculate fuel consumption would be using
engine power output X car-dependent factor
Fuel consumption in kg/h basically is proportional to the power output. The only influencing factor is the engine efficiency, which is dependent on a number of factors, but for a race car, which is mostly driven with full throttle and in a quite narrow engine speed range a simple car-dependent factor is a near enough approximation in my view.
Short shifting the Ferrari or Corvette would then mean, that you still wouldn't lose a lot of straight line speed, but you also wouldn't save as much fuel as is the case at the moment.
Finally a real virutal world example from VEC: There was a Ferrari team doing 38 laps on one stint of fuel at the preseason race at Imola. This was probably done with quite a bit of fuel saving. But several other Ferraris did 37 laps. We ran the Porsche and already had to do a bit of fuel saving to reach 35 laps, which were necessary for not having to do a second fuel stop in the 2h race. The fastest GTE of all in the 3 divisions was a Corvette doing 37 laps with one fuel tank.
(can't upload .xlsx-file to the forum, if developers are interested in the raw data, I can supply the file however. But basically the screenshot shows the important bits anyways)
Hope this post helps in finetuning the GTE class, which since the last update already is on quite a high level regarding BoP in my view - with the exception of the fuel consumption of these 2 cars.
Cheers
Seb