Thanks, seems 190mm is measure from the lowest point of the hub to the ground.. but I cannot explain the front is 90mm and the rear is 190mm, different ways of measurement from the front? According to another person doing measurement on his corolla, dropped the rear by an inch and remesured and it only moved 5kg rearwards... In rfactor, you can still see the weight distribution is the same !!! Reference is http://au.toyotaownersclub.com/forums/index.php/topic/29388-sportivo-corner-weights/[/url
Thanks for the video, Shanghai track is a track which is famous for its understeering nature, driver has no choice but to lift off steering a lot.. this video contains footwork. In the video, the driver lift off, the car does not oversteer, in game, it does oversteer. Pay attention to the mid speed corner in the video. The driver lift off few times and the car is still very stable.. In the game, the car will start drifting... I can tell from the video that the clio cup in the video is very easy to drive.. Street car (unmodified) has a very soft suspension, so it will lift off oversteering very easily with street tyres..I do believe clio street car is easier to do lift off oversteering, I can share with you more of my theory on this point, I was on 130km/h doing a corner with my coilover set to softest, the car lift off quite easily to unsettle the rear, but once I set to hardest, the lift off oversteering is gone... Anyway, I will need to wait for the tyre model is finished before judging this game again...I still feel the tyre model in the game something not right
There are many things that I don't understand, one is why ISI has set Clio's ride height to way it is set. Also why front and rear tires are not same, there is usually always some valid reason why such is chosen, but before they open it up, it is damn difficult to guess the reason, at least for me that is. However things might be well correct even they appear not to be quite so. But also they can be wrong too, one can never know. Anyway, do you have Clio in dev mode? I have written instructions how to get it to dev mode if you don't have it already: http://isiforums.net/f/forumdisplay.php/86-Wiki So what I suggest is that try to see what effect there really is and set front and rear ride height to 90, of course car's body will look to be wrong then, but one can ignore that. What you then need is data acquisition plugin (motec plugin) and motec tool (i2 pro), you can use those to see load on each tire which is in Newtons, divide 9.81 to get kg, that way you could see if ride height affects weight distribution. Also there is possibility that default setting gives weight distribution mentioned in hdv, but changing that would then move it, haven't really done such test myself, but as currently can't launch dev mode I have no chance to do those test. There was also graphical offset adjustment in hdv, can't remember if there was new feature made that would allow changing front and rear height offset individually, that is what you could use to adjust car's body to correct location if tilted body bothers a lot.
Physics principle not the true. The physical engine doesn't consider anything. Only those values understands which are entered. Select physical properties, for feeling. So we achieved correctness of work of the suspension bracket, one car in rF1. Game doesn't understand non-staff situations.
Hehehe, have to love how people think they can drive a race car like the pro's just by watching a video If they happen to be a professional, then so be it, but I seriously doubt that any pro would make that sort of statement.
I have been watching some Clio Cup videos, and rear movement in lift-offs are clearly visible in the same way It "looks" in rF2 when you drive fine. If you can't control the car, maybe you need more training. This used to happen to me when I started to drive Clio Cup in rF2 with no knowledge: And more FWD oversteer: And there are more videos of Clios and other FWD suffering lift-off oversteer when It isn't driven in the good way. Edit: and remember... in rF2 you aren't in a real car, is impossible to feel G forces, adrenaline, and environment in the same way, is very easy to go beyond limits. In real life you feel everything is happening with the car, and is more difficult to go through limits like you were in a "video game" where you don't feel fear, responsability... pro drivers can go fast with no crash, and we don't see too many control lost, but when we try to do that in a sim, we push like pros, and we crash like noobs. I'm sure most of us could not push in real life like in the sim, fear and responsability, subconscient... and if we are crazy, most of us will crash like in the sim.
I have here pdf labeled Clio Cup 2012 release, section E - Chassis, this comes from Renault. Here are 2009 setup, which is what is mentioned in this 2012 released document. Front body height 110mm Rear body height 210mm There is 20mm difference in rFactor Renault Clio to these specs, both front and rear, which I presume would be because of they running different setup now than 2009, but there are no information about 2012 setup. Now if weight distribution is measured with those ride heights, car on level, wouldn't that mean that weight distribution in rFactor would be in fact correct? 740kg weight at front, 420 kg weight at rear, 1160kg total with 70kg driver and 40kg of fuel is mentioned. Front springs are 75 and rear springs 130, I'm not sure of motion ratio on that setup and browsing quickly I could not spot mentioning of that, my eyeballing tells me that something between 0.4-0.6 might be what it is, but without any measurements, from angled solid cad image it really can land awfully lot wrong. I would imagine it being very close to front rate and fronts are 1:1 motion ratio, imo. Reason why rear is so much higher is that those are measurements from ground to wishbone/suspension mounting position. So where at front it is wishbone that is close to bottom of body level, at rear axle has arm that turns upwards where at end it has joint to body, so car's body itself is not so high from rear and measurement is not from body. Now this brings one interesting aspect up that I have always wondered. It seems that we should build our cars so that ride height would be measured from lower pivot of suspension component, instead of bottom of car's body. For rear leaf spring and live axle that would be eye of the leaf spring for example. This is something I would like to have verification from ISI, if at some point they would have time to clarify about this ride height point of measure subject. That is something that really would make actually sense though as car's body kind of 'floats' or 'hangs' from those points and it would have more effect to handling than with setting ride height to body level. I just found that I had such document too when going trough my files, ton of stuff found already
The measuring point in that Renault document (to a specific place) is also different from the way rf measures ride height (on the wheel center). Motion ratio front 0.96, rear 0.9. This thread illustrates the problem with a general look at things, always when you examine with greater detail those generalizations don't hold true. I took a look at comparing the Renault document to what is in rF2, the only thing I remember different was the unsprung masses (IIRC, it was a bit ago).
If rF measures ride height to wheel center, then ride height would be tire's radius? Oh yes, mm in setup screen are indeed imaginary units. There is only 5mm difference between front and rear when looking rfactor units, but 75-80mm is certainly not center of wheel from ground. Difference of wheel's center to car's body? Car's body to ground would sound better to me however, that is how it is told in ISI's document.
Hah, you are getting into his post too much mate At wheel center, yes - in terms of left/right and forward/back location. And yes, from body (its undertray) to ground. In the same time, first 4 undertray locations is what defines location for ride height readout for telemetry logs.
I think that I have more than 4 undertrays, maybe 8 or so, it is important to have enough of them if one attempts to do some rock crawling or similar. So if one speaks english for simpletons (simpletons like myself), you mean ride height is measured from ground at middle of tire's contact patch to directly upwards to flat imaginary level of car bottom in rFactor? And if I have 8 undertrays I really can't say which one of them is my rideheight, or is there only first four that are used for ride height calculations (00-03)? And if I from some odd reason set undertrays to 10cm off, then my rideheight is 10cm off? If all that is true, then one could say that car builds on undertray and if one has not set it correctly, one builds car on poor foundation. It is really difficult to do any meaningful tests if devmode is not working, waiting next patch to fix that, of course it is my natural state to be confused, but without access to dev mode it really is confusing at times.
Yes So, that's always Undertray00 to 03, regardless of how much you have defined. Yes, but only when you read ride height from telemetry logs, because... ...in the garage it is calculated at wheel centers all the time, regardless of undertray locations. The latter matters only when analysing telemetry.
I wonder if simple thing could be made even more confusing by some additional twist, however I'm not capable to better that at all, geez, one would think that there could be simpler methods with less variables to have that information to engine Of course current way offers flexibility. So better just set 4 first ones to hover above center of contact patch to height that is ride height and use rest to actually build undertray, that way one gets correct reading to telemetry AND don't need to bother with rideheight as one can think that ride height is at location of those undertrays.
I once thought this, but now I'm not so sure this is/was actually the case. Logically it makes sense that those first 4 pertain to telem since required to be a certain order. The rf2 Clio has the first 4 on the corners (defines a bounding box). But the first 4 for the FR3.5 define the...well...undertray. (Sorry about using a word to define itself, but that is what it is called in Renault docs.) Both the Clio and FR3.5 are flat and @ 0 elevation.
I'm very sure about that...well, at least for rF 1 and for rF 2, until they have changed that in recent rF 2 builds (but I don't think so). It should goes like this: Undertray00 = LF, 01 = RF, 02 = RL and 03 = RR. Yes, those first 4 positions also define undertrays. That's correct. But what rF also use them as ride height measure points, to report ride height to telemetry logs. In rF 1, you can use alternative set, which is: UndertrayLF, UndertrayRF and so on and that set should have higher priority than Undertray00-03. Didn't check if those work also in rF 2.
From the quick view in suspedit and a glance over the Renault FR3.5 doc it would appear that the FR3.5 is concurrent with rF1's handling of the undertray. (Looks like where the ride height is measured corresponds to the undertray positions). Unfortunately the Clio doesn't seem to have the undertray points set where the ride height is measured. That is one of the things that is most frustrating about rf modding, just when you think you have a pattern to follow you find the exception to the rule.
Yes, that is one of things which are useless... why set up ride height at wheel centers, if you can simply define such points in relation to the reference plane in HDV and refer to them? That would be more consistent approach and more cleaner too, from design point of view. I hope, ISI will do some clean up in their engine.
While we are way OT, I think nothing of it since the original post seems to have been a faulty conclusion, and all thoughts about it seem to have been covered. The one thing I was thinking is that possibly the Aero still needs the entire area of the undertray for calculations.
Back to thread. I have some experience on setups on real Clio Cup cars (2012 spec). I think the regulations is the same in all series in Europe. The real car: - The back of the car is more slippery then on other FWD cars that I've worked with and tends to snap going into corners. No antiroll bar at back and it's not allowed to put one on. The rollcage it self acts as a antiroll bar at back (my conclusion) and stiffens the car up. Think this is why they haven't put one in. - The dampers aren't adjustable at all and you aren't allowed to put others in. Same goes for springs. The things you can do and what we worked with is. - Cross weight. Front/back weight. Our car weight at back: 427Kg - Ride High We didnt' messure this from the points described in the manual. We kept track of turns on the lockrings that holds everything in place trying to keep Cross Weight all the time. This had an impact in how the dampers worked as well (took a couple of events until we realized that) as the dampers has an optimal working range. Most impact in front. - Camber Worked alot on this one. No magic here. - Toe Worked alot on this one as well. Mostley at back to get turn in the right. - Tyre Pressure. This was the most importend part if you got your Car Weight and Ride high right. (dont count camber and toe in here as its so basic and shouldn't be any problem really). You could really get a slippery car that snaps on you behave alot better just by adjusting the tyre pressure. So compared to rFactor 2. Haven't done so many laps yet as I just bought the game but here it goes. Well it's more loose all over then I expected and the snap at turn in is very predictable and happens to often I belive meaning that it should come when you really push and not driving like 90%. Its also to easy to cope with. Should be abit harder to handle I belive. The car feels to smooth in a way also, real car is really stiff. This is my first impressions of the game and the Clio Cup car so I might change some things later on as I need to test more.
