Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by SputnikRSS, Oct 25, 2017.
How did you make out? Did you get it a little closer to your real car?
The rear stability is pretty close now but the car has a push in high speed corners but that is pretty realistic for a VanDiemen and one of the reasons I run a Mygale and not a VanDiemen in real life.
I always questioned the general plowsteer in all sims. It seems odd that the front tires loose traction when I burn the back ones in a drift. Also sims miss the sticky traction part when cooling down.
I like playing with that point in a real car. And yes, I have twisted more then one axle off in my V8 Vega's.
Over all I find traction too vague still. (rF2 being the best I have found)
Tires must be hard to code? I know Kunos, ISI, S397 and even SMS have worked hard on it for years now.
PS I know I missed some sims out there. No disrespect intended.
Also the wing angle changes do not make nearly enough difference to straight line speed nor cornering speed in these cars in the sim. In real life I would be losing 10mph+ on a good straight running full wing vs none but in the sim maybe 1/2mph.
If you think GT3 rear wing produces a lot of downforce and drag... Think again. Angle of attack goes from being a ironing board to being a surfboard. It produces some downforce at max setting but not nearly as much as people expect from something that big.
Not talking about GT3s talking about the F2000 cars which are greatly effected by them.
Why the hell was I thinking this thread was about GT3? Talking to myself: Too many tabs opened Robert. Too many tabs you have opened. Note that down. <writting> Sorry
It was probably the title of USF2000 baseline that threw you off.
When you have like really 20 tabs opened with all of them being from this forum and absolute certainty that the one that you just clicked is the one where there is this discussion over new GT3 cars... that's the problem. Mea culpa.
Anyway, yes USF2000 is small, VERY light car so any change to drag makes huge impact on handling and speed. Going from low to highest downforce should result in significant speed difference however, it must be said that the straight has to be long enough because USF's engine is not very torque'y which means the difference should be felt more towards top end of speed capabilities. Not saying that below that there is no change, just not as visible.
I thought I was the only one who did that?
The damper values for the USF2000 have a huge range and I seem to remember that the defaults are ridiculously high. Essentially the rear springs have nearly all their compliance removed. I'll look up the values tomorrow.
Yep, for springs that are rated up to 175kg/mm the slow speed settings of the dampers can be set up to 33800 N/m/s. That's way above the range that would be used on much heavier duty springs on heavier, high downforce cars. The defaults, I think, are about half of those both with spring and damper ratings but this still results in a suspension that will barely respond to moderate weight transfers. Another aspect to the range of damper settings available is that with one or two clicks it is possible to create a grossly misbalanced bump/rebound damper response.
It is very easy to run suspension set-ups that are just plain wrong with this car - although in sim-racing that quite often hasn't been the problem you would expect and many people run very harsh suspensions as it is what they have become accustomed to. The trouble is we don't see or feel the bizarre responses this creates and start solving problems by adapting other areas to compensate and carry the issue through hours of practice when in real life you would be able to stand and look at the car before it had turned a wheel and spot the problem immediately.
Separate names with a comma.