|
You can easily add eight seconds to all your pre-patch times there Duuk because of changed cooling requirements.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
Riso posted:You can easily add eight seconds to all your pre-patch times there Duuk because of changed cooling requirements. 8:07 for the Lotus body Sportsman is post patch Edit: I went back to make sure I was right and the time was 8:06.48 but the car is a bit over budget and slightly under cooling requirement - as I said, I only did the excercise to see what the body could do in theory. I will take it within the rules to see what happens. Second edit: Well, it lost two seconds, but it was an axe job. Fully legal Sportsman and I'm sure there's another second in there if I were motivated to look for it. 
Duuk fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
I will be entering. Competitive? More than likely, no. Work has been eat a dick crazy with our sccm deployment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
I finally got my game working again so I'll be trying to get an entry done. When is the deadline for this series? Are we using the open beta?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Duckaerobics posted:I finally got my game working again so I'll be trying to get an entry done. When is the deadline for this series? Are we using the open beta? There are a bunch of deadlines, 20th is for the submissions. There's a schedule in the OP (end of 3rd post). The open beta is done, there is a release version out. It has butt engines and turbo veesixes. Also requires much, much more cooling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
I decided to bow out because I can't put together anything that'll compete with what's been posted without spending a lot more time on the game than I'm willing to put in right now. Good luck to the competitors!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
I'd like to propose that the Test Day be run as a Test Weekend instead (that is to say, a single 48 hour race instead of a 2 hour race). Provided it doesn't cause a massive increase in workload for Mr Chips of course. A two hour test would show us how fast our cars are. A forty eight hour test would show us how fast our cars are AND whether that bastard beating us by two seconds per lap is doing so on the brink of spontaneous combustion. Would put a bit more perspective on the reliability side of things. Liquid Communism posted:I decided to bow out because I can't put together anything that'll compete with what's been posted without spending a lot more time on the game than I'm willing to put in right now. Good luck to the competitors! Somewhat linked to the above - if you want to participate but can't spare time for fine tuning, it might be worth putting together something cheap (to save money for QP), moderately fast and super reliable. Basically distributing points more or less equally amongst categories up to the maximum allowed, perhaps just a little slanted towards the extra weight categories. I mean, if a car does the 'Ring in 8:10 for 24 hours and breaks down once for fifteen minutes, it'll finish 174 laps. If a car does the 'Ring in 8:13 for 24 hours and doesn't break down, it'll finish 175 laps. Edit: That is, of course, assuming that neither car needs extra fuel. Pretend they have pedals. And drivers with insomnia. Duuk fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I decided to bow out because I can't put together anything that'll compete with what's been posted without spending a lot more time on the game than I'm willing to put in right now. Good luck to the competitors! Yeah, same here, I mean poo poo like this: Duuk posted:8:07 for the Lotus body Sportsman is post patch ...is so blatantly faster than anything even remotely possible in my copy of the game for rules legal cars that I'm beginning to wonder if my copy of the game has damaged files or that people are using a different version of the Green Hell track than I am; and I just plain give up, since I don't have the patience to sit for tens of hours to iterate on designs to find every little glitch in the game's systems (found out yesterday that it was a waste to put the brake pads on my car to anything other than 0 race, since it's faster at full comfort and still has 0 brake fade! - this poo poo is too non-sensible and buggy for me  ). I'm out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:Yeah, same here, I mean poo poo like this: You might be glad to hear then, that particular car will never see the racetrack? It was about two hours of tweaking removed from the original (pre-version change) car. Several people had very similar 8:10ish cars at that point, lotus bodies of course. I have already submitted my entries for Touring and Open. The Open is not a wedge body. Duuk fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
I've had almost no time to tweak and tune things, but I'll throw what I got into the pool and hope for a solid bottom-3rd finish. Touring and Sportsman, less decisions to make there...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Crap, I just realised my Tourer is illegal. Would still appreciate it if it were let to run in the test to see reliability. Rest assured, it will be several seconds slower in the final version. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Well guys, I've only had four entries to the challenge - it really isn't enough to make it happen, unfortunately. Having said that, in the next little while, the challenge will be reborn with a few tweaks (there are a few rules that leave some pretty messy loopholes) - I am going to swallow my pride and do it either in Games or in Let's Play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
I'd have entered but school started and I've been slammed busy. :/ They did just post an update introducing V12s. Max capacity 16.3L, which is shameful; how will I make my Merlin-powered luxury rocket now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:I'd have entered but school started and I've been slammed busy. :/ You can tweak the bore/stroke with a text editor 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBH3G8RZFv4
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Well guys, I've only had four entries to the challenge - it really isn't enough to make it happen, unfortunately. Sorry, Chips. My best efforts were ending up in the vicinity of 10-20 seconds behind the posted times, and there was no reason to even run them at that point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Sorry, Chips. My best efforts were ending up in the vicinity of 10-20 seconds behind the posted times, and there was no reason to even run them at that point. Same. I'm a failure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Well guys, I've only had four entries to the challenge - it really isn't enough to make it happen, unfortunately. Yea I wanted to get an entry done, but just didn't have time. Make sure you post a link here, because I'm definitely going to have something for the next one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
For the next time, prohibit the Lotus MR body. Year's fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Riso posted:For the next time, prohibit the Lotus MR body. Year's fine. Yeah, I think it will be allowed in Open only next time, if at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Well guys, I've only had four entries to the challenge - it really isn't enough to make it happen, unfortunately. Aw man What loopholes were you referring to? Aside from the Lotus being super duper good I can't think of any - and if you're changing the rules anyway, I would be curious to know. Again, considering the rules will be changing and there will be more waiting around for people at Games or Let's play respectively (even if the year stays the same which would be very much fine) - would you be willing to run the existing entries through the sim just for kicks? It doesn't have to be a trophy thing and I don't know if the other entrants feel the same (?) but I'd love to see my cars run a few races before they go to the bin. Let's say Daytona, Le Mans and The Ring? No frills, just the simulation? If you'd be willing to go through with it, I'd promise to do a writeup of my cars (and the model progression through the challenge) for others to learn from assuming they aren't already better than me at it.  Incidentally I think it'd be a solid rule to say that for any GT, the top three of the previous challenge should to publicise their Green Hell times to the nearest second when they improve on them. Wouldn't have to reveal their body or suspension setup or anything, just would give you a marker to aim for. Everybody was pretty open about their progression the first time around and it didn't seem to hurt anyone. I'll send over a revised rules-compliant Tourer tonight just in case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
I'm interested in what my open did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
I'm interested in what my original submission did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Alright, I will run an exhibition event with what I have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAZP2Rlq43c
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
HOWLER AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT LOG Good morning, Fans! Both those of Howler Automotive and of industrial espionage. Yes Bob, we see you there, you can take off the moustache. In today's VIP tour we will walk you through some of the highlights of our development cycle for the upcoming SA-GT 1975 season. From our wide range of models, we have always endeavoured to pick the best candidates for the challenge. Whenever the preliminary rulesets have been adjusted, so have those choices been reviewed. All our models are developed with spirited drivers in mind, so this has not always been an easy task. Rest assured, all the Howlers in your local autoshop share the pedigree and engineering that has been tried and tested on the racetrack. Any one of them is a solid, fast and reliable ride, though if you really want the real thing, the RS versions of the models seen here are, of course, least removed from what you see on TV. Let's start with the TOURING class. Our first tests for SA-GT were on the Stealth chassis, as the clean curvy bodies have always been strong in sales and have a very good aerodynamic profile, not to mention steady wide wheelbase. The Howler Stealth RS boasted a FR layout, 1200cc turbocharged engine and was timed on the Nurburgring at around 9 minutes.  Unfortunately, we realised one thing in particular worked against this body type. The weight is concentrated towards the front of the body, which interferes with putting down power from the engine and negatively affects cornering. The aerodynamic uplift at the rear at high speeds exacerbated the effect. Today, the Stealth chassis has been reworked to make RS models available with a rear engine layout, which alleviates those problems. We cannot rule out the Stealth returning to the test track at some point in the future. Our next step after considerable testing in computer simulations was the Howler Hype. It is a short, compact body with again, a very wide wheelbase. This time, the weight distribution can also be brought very close to perfection. With a fuel-injected 1200cc Turbo engine, The Howler Hype RS improved upon the Stealth's Nurburgring time by almost 15 seconds. Further research and development saw us switching to a carburetted engine which slightly reduced the power output but allowed usage of higher quality materials elsewhere - we gained almost another second from this. In the end, the Hype RS was clocked in Green Hell at right around 8:46.00.  As you well know, this was when the Global Autosport Association came under heavy fire from environmentalists for allowing freon-cooled engines in racing. After the GAA ruling to abolish freon, we had to make allowances for a much larger cooling area. It struck us that under these new circumstances, a naturally aspirated engine with less power and less heat generation could be very competitive. As the Hype body was due to receive a facelift at this same time, we codenamed our new model the Epiphany. We should say right away, that the Howler Epiphany RS was, strictly speaking, illegal. We had creatively interpreted the exhaust parameters in the rules and fitted the Naturally Aspirated, 1500cc V6 Mirrorball engine with a custom-built racing manifold which gave it about 10% more power than it rightly should have had. Right around 150kW. Testing had the Epiphany show Ring times of just over 8:45.  At this same time, a small group of engineers was reviewing our old simulations for other body shapes. We wanted to be certain the changes had not reduced the competitive potential of the Hype/Epiphany model. The results were dividing. For one, we now had a rear engined chassis available. The Arachnotron body, straight out of the factory, showed blistering speed on hillclimbs and rally stages. The sheer acceleration could not be matched with a FR layout. At the same time, the skewed weight distribution had a negative effect on endurance track times. Bringing the Arachnotron scraping under 8:50 in Green Hell was a challenge. In the end, we decided to stick to a FR layout with the understanding that hillclimbs and possibly rallies would be won by someone going RR.  For two, a simple FR hatchback model sketched up with a suspension setup directly copied over from the Epiphany came up with a time of 8:48. This was highly unorthodox. Normally, you would not expect a chassis to show times within 10 seconds of its final capability without special suspension tuning. The prototype was codenamed Prodigy and work continued in two teams simultaneously. It is difficult to say whether the Prodigy is, in fact, a "better" chassis than the Epiphany. Each have their strengths and developing the Howler Prodigy RS cut into the time we could have used on the Epiphany. I suppose the engineers were just eager to make something entirely new. The peak Green Hell times of the Prodigy with a redevelopment of the illegal engine (called Angerball in this case) were in between 8:44 and 8:45.   When we realised our tech would not pass inspection, we had no time to redevelop the powertrain and suspension to match. With a rushed change to a Cast exhaust manifold, the engine lost almost 10% of its power and added 4,5 seconds to its 'Ring time. The drivers affectionally called it the Wheezeball powertrain. Although we were disappointed to hear about the beginning of the racing season being delayed due to a drivers' strike, some of our engineers have expressed relief that they would have time to review and redevelop our engine choice. Here you can see one of the actual Prodigy RS racers in its livery, before it leaves for the scheduled exhibition events.  Next, the SPORTSMAN class. The Sportsman class had the most surprises in the development cycle and was dropped from our plans, as you may know from our press statements, rather abruptly. Nonetheless, there were some very interesting models tested. Firstly, the Howler Foghorn RS was put together, with a 4 litre NA V8 engine. It had a significant amount of aerodynamic drag, but gained from it a significant amount of downforce. Prior to the GAA ruling it did the Ring in about 8:18 but was dropped mid-development at the same time as the Howler Stealth for much the same reasons. We realised that the body had little weight on the rear wheels which led to some power being lost and the aerodynamic frontal area was just too inhibiting at higher speeds.  The Howler Bullhorn RS put more weight on the rear wheels via a long cantilevering cargo area, which our engineers were very proud of thinking of at the time. The aero efficiency was also better, and the Bullhorn showed Ring times of just under 8:16. In my personal opinion, it is one of the best looking models we have today and the sales figures seem to back that up.  With the GAA change and influx of mid-and rear-engined cars, we moved away from the Sportsman class. In addition to the weight distribution and power delivery advantages, mid-engined models could be built with a significantly lower aerodynamic drag. Ultimately we felt the Open class would be a more interesting competition and thus redirected our efforts. In order to better gauge the playing field, we did put a bit of time into the Howler Oblivion prototype for Sportsman, which you may remember from the racing community's public outrage after it was caught and timed by spy photographers at the Ring. The Oblivion prototype had a 4 litre carburetted Flathead V8 engine and was notoriously tricky - but rewarding - in response to suspension tuning. The mechanics would often draw straws during testing events to see who would have to spend the long night retuning the Oblivion's chassis to the drivers' feedback.  Last, but not least, OPEN. We all love the beasts of Open class, don't we? The smell of burning rubber and the roar of the engine when one of these goes past, it goes right into your bones. Our first Open class car was the Howler Opera House RS. I will admit that it was a bit of a publicity stunt to pull attention to our new off-road lineup, but the Opera House was nonetheless a very capable racecar. While it had a high centre of gravity and rather poor aerodynamic efficiency, you could put very wide tires in these large wheel wells. In addition, very importantly, the weight distribution of the chassis was very close to perfect. It was powered by the Wedge class NA 7,6 litre V8 putting out 561kW at 567g/kWh and went around Green Hell at around 7:46. Unfortunately after the GAA verdict, we never got the car to work quite right again. To be fair, perhaps we did not try hard enough because we had a new idea.  The Howler Invisigoth RS was what captured the hearts, minds and ears of our engineers from there on. A spacious coupe with a 6,9 litre low-pressure turbocharged I6 engine in the rear and lots and lots of rubber underneath that goes around the Green Hell in 7:45. The Hammer class engine makes 684kW at the crank with an efficiency of 588g/kWh. Those mathematically inclined will figure out that this car will consume the contents of its 250 litre fuel tank in about 6 laps of the Ring - almost exactly HALF of that of an economically minded mid engine car. As mentioned before, we were counting on it making up for the additional pit stops by being pretty nippy on the accelerator. 3,5 seconds from 0-100 and 1,2 seconds from 80-120 are impressive numbers in their own right, but in reality the car is geared and optimised to stay in its power band between 150 and 300kM/h. It is not really intended to exceed 300km/h - he Howler Invisigoth RS weighs almost exactly 1400kg and has an aerodynamic equivalent frontal area of 1,5mē which limits the top speed.   Again, in order to gauge the capabilities of the Invisigoth RS, our engineers advanced the Oblivion prototype into the codename Cerberus. This car, purely a research chassis, did the Ring in 8:56 with a 4,2 litre fuel injected NA flathead V8. As mentioned before, it could go more than 12 laps of the ring before refueling. Ultimately we put our faith and hearts into the Invisigoth project instead.  If you consider those above fast cars, then keep these tips in mind: First, test body types. I like the Touring class best in this GT because it has at least 3 bodies competitive in their own niches. The Fiat 124 (Epiphany/Hype) and Prodigy (Escort?) bodies are pretty much equal in my experience. The rear-engine old body will have its day where acceleration matters most (possibly elsewhere if you can tune the suspension better than me). There could well be other bodies, I didn't check them after the version change. I think Riso used the CRX? Build a decent engine, drop it in different bodies and play around with the suspension. PLAY AROUND WITH THE SUSPENSION. There is tens of seconds in there. Sometimes I just try to get the swoopy lines to match up reasonably well by eying them and then continue from there. In touring with the same engine layouts you should get decent results by just reusing suspension from another chassis for a starting point. The body geometry affects weight distribution so test that if you can be bothered. With the rules as they are, forget fuel injection. Go for carbs and use the money in gearbox quality+elsewhere. You will be just as fast or even faster and more reliable. Try more stroke for small, more bore for big engines. Keep in mind that you can get a teeny bit of reliability from small adjustments here if you are happy with the engine otherwise. Keep in mind that changing the weight of your engine even a little bit will gently caress up your suspension tuning, so once you have selected a body, try to get your engine to a point that you are happy with before spending time on chassis tuning. I think that's it. I will keep some of the details secret because it sounds like we'll be doing 1975 soon, but the times should be a decent guide for newbies I hope. Thanks for taking the Edit: Fixed the Invisigoth's Ring time, thanks Riso. Duuk fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
quote:Green Hell in 4:45 Not without proof, honey! quote:First, test body types. I just pick 1-3 bodies I like and see which one's faster then compare with wargames' times on irc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
OK, there is going to be a delay with the exhibition, because I found a major flaw in my simulation; it's going to take a little while to fix unfortunately. On the other hand, I am glad I found it this way and not right before the big day of a fully-subscribed season.  I will say this much; basically all of the submissions I received would suffer from brake failures at some point. The reason for this is that most of you have opted for no brake cooling whatsoever. While the game will technically allow you to do this and still have 0.0% brake fade, it is exploity as all hell and I baked in a (hacky) fix for this into the simulation. Basically, it can summed up as this; take the weight of your car and divide by 50; if your brake cooling is below that number, you're probably going to meet Mr. Armco at some point. Also, some of the entries fell short in other areas; a couple of them would have failed at the minimum safety rating of 25.0 (24.9 isn't enough!), for example. I will also say this; my Touring car is slow as gently caress compared to all the other ones, doing the Nurburgring in 8:58. With all the other cars clocking in at 8:53 and below, I am seriously left scratching my head as to where I've gone wrong because it feels like I've got every last ounce of speed out of it. That said, I am pleased that my Sportsman would be seriously competitive, even with the soon-to-be-banned mid-engine cars. Mine turns a lap of the Nurburgring in 8:23, while the MR cars (of which all the remaining Sportsman entries were) are in the 8-15-8:20 range. As for Open cars, I've only had a chance to look at Duuk's, and it's ridiculous; 7:45 around the Nurburgring! MrChips fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
MrChips posted:OK, there is going to be a delay with the exhibition, because I found a major flaw in my simulation; it's going to take a little while to fix unfortunately. On the other hand, I am glad I found it this way and not right before the big day of a fully-subscribed season. The thing with brake cooling is that normally a car's brakes are cooled naturally by air - because they are essentially outside the car, and I would be willing to bet that the wheel design of actual sports cars will be such that when the wheel turns, it affects air pressure in the wheel well (would make sense to suck it out to lower air pressure under the car) and cool the brakes further. The "brake cooling" parameter in the aero options shares the Grille+Vent area with your engine. It completely bypasses any natural cooling from being outside the car's body. How many cars have vent/grille area actually dedicated to brakes? I think the BMW M3 has something? I'm pretty sure not every sportscar has special brake cooling vents inside the bodywork to bolster the natural process. That would probably be why the brake sim allows you to have 0,0 brake cooling without "forced" extra airflow. In addition, if brake cooling becomes mandatory, I would guess it would push all brake pads towards "comfort". That is because, as said above, currently race pads have better heat resistance so you can up the rating at the cost of drivability to prevent fade. If you're cooling them forcibly anyway, you can use comfort pads and get higher drivability. I haven't tested it, but I know I have been Fade-limited on a couple of cars in my pad choice. Therefore, I would ask you to reconsider the brake cooling hack/fix. It would just penalise heavy cars, which will have a harder time anyway because they are heavy. And Comfort pads on supercars shouldn't be the best pick. Duuk fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Duuk posted:The "brake cooling" parameter in the aero options shares the Grille+Vent area with your engine. It completely bypasses any natural cooling from being outside the car's body. How many cars have vent/grille area actually dedicated to brakes? I think the BMW M3 has something? I'm pretty sure not every sportscar has special brake cooling vents inside the bodywork to bolster the natural process. That would probably be why the brake sim allows you to have 0,0 brake cooling without "forced" extra airflow. Almost every performance car that I know of has some sort of provision for supplemental cooling air for the brakes, usually fed from vents or grilles in the bodywork - and I can pretty much guarantee that any race car, even lightly modified production cars, will have the same, so I think it's fair. And yes, the idea is in fact to penalise heavy cars...I want you guys to think long and hard about every kilogram you add and every dollar you spend.  E: In fact, I am going to tighten up the Touring class a bit; no more turbos, fewer total QPs, lower max cost and lower max permitted weight, but a bit more free in exhaust (no restriction on headers). MrChips fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Almost every performance car that I know of has some sort of provision for supplemental cooling air for the brakes, usually fed from vents or grilles in the bodywork - and I can pretty much guarantee that any race car, even lightly modified production cars, will have the same, so I think it's fair. Alright then. My main concern was related to Open (and my own sweet little lardass Invisigoth RS) where the weights get large and aerodynamics get limiting when you want to go SPEED instead of ECONOMY. Because SPEED seems like the thing you should do in Open. In the end it's a balance. I'll just balance around the brake cooling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Is that weight in pounds or kg?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
quote:and I can pretty much guarantee that any race car, even lightly modified production cars, This is true, but it's often done to extend pad life, not prevent brake failure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
MrChips posted:
My heart sings at this! I ask for a lower min weight by 20-50kg's (or more) if you restrict displacement further south of 1500cc. The fuel economy micro car class is really what it should shape up to be. I was getting my car in around 680kgs and then struggling to add weight and keep the price below $7000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:52
|
|
