|
Riso posted:I think you misunderstood. He is using the Wedge 2.0 model, not that it has a 2l engine. He won't say what engine. I knew most of that except the front tyres being smaller thing. Why is that? weight distribution?
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
simplefish posted:I knew most of that except the front tyres being smaller thing. Why is that? weight distribution? Drivability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
It's nice to know that where I'm thinking I need to be is correct. I've had better success with cast iron block and head. Any validity to that? I'm always trying the mini-cooper body or the golf body hence the small displacement motor. I'll go to the V6 or V8 that I was finding better success with. Thanks for the gearing and tyres/tires and other advice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Cast iron's more reliable but Alu is better for weight distribution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Any quick pointers on g/kwh? I got away in Chips' challenge with quite a thirsty car so I have no idea what is reasonable ballpark in this championship
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Any quick pointers on g/kwh? I got away in Chips' challenge with quite a thirsty car so I have no idea what is reasonable ballpark in this championship If you need to stop more than twice you better have a really fast car... More seriously, the only thing that matters is the fuel consumption of the engine at high rpm so ignore the number it shows for efficiency. High cam is the key. The number on the car is based on low rpm city driving. Enter a test to see how much fuel you're using under real conditions and adjust if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Riso posted:Sure, tyre wear and fuel do affect the car but 1.6s? I'll have to send it again to see if it wasn't a fluke. The first car with turbo I sent had pretty much what I expected from the game but lol pitting every 12 laps. If you got the same time with your turbo in the test as you did ingame, then something is seriously hosed. My NA has lost more than a second in the transition on both tests. Excel tells me even with my NA which COULD run with one pit, tire wear on slicks will make two stops considerably better. I'll see what sports tires bring, though obviously this is a non issue where the weather changes. "Maximum track stay" will maybe be competitive in Norisring, Mainz and Kassel-Calden. Otherwise, one or two stops (or possibly more if you've built something absurdly fast) will be the way to go. Probably two. FYI I'm HowlerAutomotive on Discourse. Duuk fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Jul 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
you know I don't see the rules explicitly banning 4wd....
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:you know I don't see the rules explicitly banning 4wd.... Careful, 4x4 is not AWD. It behaves like RWD on roads. Duuk posted:If you got the same time with your turbo in the test as you did ingame, then something is seriously hosed. My NA has lost more than a second in the transition on both tests. There's always the possibility the turbo has so much power it doesn't care. So I've gone back to look at the Hockenheim videos to see if the car had times I expected. It seems to have done so despite being NA. What if the RR setup is simply a lot more weight sensitive? Brobot just adds all fuel weight to center mass btw. Riso fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jul 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Riso posted:Careful, 4x4 is not AWD. It behaves like RWD on roads. Yeah, 4x4 in Automation is basically like what you would expect in an old off-roader; a manually-engaged four-wheel drive system, that reverts to RWD when not in use. In other words, it adds to your offroad score...and to your weight. On the subject of RR cars, they are more weight sensitive for sure, but it doesn't seem to be the issue at hand here. My car is RR (because of course it would be), and I lost about a third of a second between my idealised lap time and the best lap in the practice session, which is about what I expected it would lose due to fuel weight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
The effort post on calculating fuel consumption http://discourse.automationgame.com/t/brc-1966-gentleman-brobots-club-race-7-p-q/6413/102
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Riso posted:The effort post on calculating fuel consumption http://discourse.automationgame.com/t/brc-1966-gentleman-brobots-club-race-7-p-q/6413/102 cheers for this
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Anyone know where to find the ATT lua file? I want to make a flying lap version for testing and it doesn't seem to be in the tracks folder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Duuk posted:Anyone know where to find the ATT lua file? I want to make a flying lap version for testing and it doesn't seem to be in the tracks folder. Built-in as far as I can tell. The Brands Hatch track gives you two laps btw but only a combined lap time. So be quick on the screenshot key when the car passes start. I did some testing on the discrepancy brobot vs automation. I think the bot is adding the fuel weight to center mass of the car and I am trying to simulate that by adding heavier interiors. It's not perfect but unless someone figures out what to edit in the .lua it will have to do. When I add fuel weight to my NA car I do get similar results to the test videos. Not that it makes sense because the bot does running starts and should be a few seconds faster but w/e. What it made me realise is that we're all optimising our cars for maximum performance at the minimum weight. So when you add additional weight for the fuel, it throws a lot of our optimisations into disarray, from brake pads to suspension setup. Maybe we should tune our cars at the higher weight point. It will not be as quick as it could be in qualifying but our race pace should improve.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Riso posted:What it made me realise is that we're all optimising our cars for maximum performance at the minimum weight. So when you add additional weight for the fuel, it throws a lot of our optimisations into disarray, from brake pads to suspension setup. That does seem to be the case. Tuning somewhere at the midpoint between empty weight and weight with the max amount of fuel you'll expect to be using would then be optimal. Frankly I'm not sure I can be bothered because to do it properly I'd have to optimise at midweight, then verify at min and max that nothing is thrown off by too much and... at the end of the day maybe gain a tenth per lap on average (because 50-70kg of fuel is still 50-70kg of fuel no matter how you optimise). In a race that tenth can be huge but I will not have such amount of time spend on this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
The problem with tuning for mid or max weight is that if you do that, you might find yourself with an oversteery animal of a car at or near minimum weight, depending on your weight distribution, which I imagine will needlessly penalise you on the difficulty calculations. I found that my car actually becomes more docile the heavier it gets; as in, the low-speed handling graph trends toward more understeer with more weight. One other thing I've also found in my poking around is that FR cars in Automation (especially in this era and this challenge, where tires quickly become the limiting factor) will often perform slightly better with a little added weight, presumably helping with traction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The problem with tuning for mid or max weight is that if you do that, you might find yourself with an oversteery animal of a car at or near minimum weight, depending on your weight distribution, which I imagine will needlessly penalise you on the difficulty calculations. I found that my car actually becomes more docile the heavier it gets; as in, the low-speed handling graph trends toward more understeer with more weight. Sounds like your setup is too twitchy by default. Are you guys optimising your gearing for sectors two and three? I was told there's no point looking at the first sector because of the running vs standing start difference. I tried a few settings but only found 0.05s in S2/3 at best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Anyone find MPG horseshit? I can't figure it out how to maximize it, my tiny I4 is sucking up so much fuel and it's geared nicely, light car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Ignore the in-game fuel estimate. Look at the fuel economy at high rpm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Riso posted:Are you guys optimising your gearing for sectors two and three? I was told there's no point looking at the first sector because of the running vs standing start difference. I think I got similar results, though it was a few days ago that I last had a chance to fiddle with the car. Ultimately a standing start isn't all that different from accelerating out of a tight chicane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
The big difference is that you are already moving in the hairpin or chicane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Riso posted:The big difference is that you are already moving in the hairpin or chicane. But "zero to forty" acceleration isn't something you would need to optimise for. If your car is at home in the twisties starting from a 40km/h chicane, it'll be fine accelerating from 0 as well. So the 1st sector time may not be precise but it's still reasonably good at describing your twisties performance. Especially since there is only one standing start but several corners.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Bavarian Body Style gets me a respectable 2:16. NotPorsche can get into 2:14. I absolutely don't understand suspension tuning. I need a good light car to take advantage of my 240hp 2.0L.... And just ran my piece of garbage through the tool and it's nearly double the cost reported on the overview. extreme_accordion fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Latest pre-season test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avz5qgmUP1c I've improved by about a second or so...I am not quite yet where I want to be though, even if I can, by my calculations, easily one-stop any of the races in the calendar; the difference between one-stopping and two stopping a hypothetical 200-210 km race at ATT (which is as long as the races are in this series) is equivalent to going three-quarters of a second per lap faster for my car (whose pit stop length is limited by tire change time). Top Hats Monthly posted:Anyone find MPG horseshit? I can't figure it out how to maximize it, my tiny I4 is sucking up so much fuel and it's geared nicely, light car. I have a guide in the OP that goes some ways to help you figure out how to make your fuel economy better. A hint - don't run too high a compression ratio (especially with a turbo engine), don't set your camshaft to 100 (that is almost always suboptimal for power and efficiency), try to maximise ignition advance and keep your air-fuel ratio as lean as possible. Also, engines that are excessively oversquare (much bigger bore than stroke) tend to suffer a fuel economy penalty too. Duuk posted:But "zero to forty" acceleration isn't something you would need to optimise for. If your car is at home in the twisties starting from a 40km/h chicane, it'll be fine accelerating from 0 as well. So the 1st sector time may not be precise but it's still reasonably good at describing your twisties performance. Especially since there is only one standing start but several corners. Yeah, the totally screwed-up way that the game calculates 0-40 acceleration right now makes it a mug's game to try and optimise for. But, an improvement in sector one times are improvements nonetheless as you say; just not something that should be pursued at the expense of the other sectors IMO. MrChips fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Nothing to see here...move along...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
So how does this idiot submit his care for addition to the next test day? Sigh... in the rules book you dummy not the thread. extreme_accordion fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
For the engine design I'd like to add that you should keep the performance index in mind. It represents the usable power band and a higher rating usually means better. Edit: two more pre-season tests. Riso fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Well got my 2:16 second car in. Can we discuss suspension tuning for FR setups? I'm a total failure with the MR notporsche
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:Well got my 2:16 second car in. Can we discuss suspension tuning for FR setups? The 930 is RR, not MR. It's very tricky and annoying to tune because of the weight distribution. I got 2:14 on my FR-930 just by hitting "race" under suspension without any additional tuning. FR are really easy to work with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
I can't see 4 seconds being worth 0.7L of displacement and weight but when in Rome...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
How do people get better performance on sports tyres than me on slicks? What's the sport tyre secret to car setup so you don't lose 2s?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Riso posted:How do people get better performance on sports tyres than me on slicks? I would have to think softer springs is the difference between slip and grip but again I'm terrible with the suspension setups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:I would have to think softer springs is the difference between slip and grip but again I'm terrible with the suspension setups. I just move the sliders around until I've got something that works but I did get some better results softening everything!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Riso posted:How do people get better performance on sports tyres than me on slicks? It seems as though with sport tires you can run extreme levels of camber and still have reasonably good tire wear. Also, you should probably note that the only changes I made to yesterday's car over the previous test was to switch to semi-slicks and set the camber to a more conservative value and yet I went no faster than the previous test on sports compound tires...even though my car showed a full second improvement in the lap time set in-game...my car *should* be lapping mid 2:12s, but the best time it posted was a 2:14. Granted, the tires went off after 13-14 laps, but still...
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Riso posted:How do people get better performance on sports tyres than me on slicks? Riso posted:I just move the sliders around until I've got something that works but I did get some better results softening everything! Excuse me sir but I believe you may have just found your problem on your own
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
literally a fish posted:Excuse me sir but I believe you may have just found your problem on your own You'd be surprised how spot on you can be with the semi-slicks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
After yesterdays test I switched from semi slicks to sport. Dropped the camber to around 1.7 I think and I'm only showing 2 seconds off my pace and 1 second off my quickest. My tires went off so fast in the test that I dropped 6-8 seconds off of pace after setting a 2:16. Doing a 911 2.7L TT V6 making about 460 No front aero 225 265 geared for around 24% tire spin and a 0-62 time of about 5.8-6.5. My fuel consumption was ridiculously low in my opinion with a 4.62km/l rating - but as Riso keeps saying - it's all in the cam. Given what I saw for tire wear I'm thinking that being middle of the pack with good fuel and tire is going to win the day. Off to the Vintage races this weekend at Road America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Riso posted:How do people get better performance on sports tyres than me on slicks? I do lose about 1.5s on sports. But considering the longevity it seems worth it. I'm stunned at leo's results though. It seems the car is fairly hard to drive but the speed with which it goes around is nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
New dev update! With a peak at the upcoming light campaign mode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkYs1MH9hMg
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Duuk posted:I do lose about 1.5s on sports. But considering the longevity it seems worth it. It only does 13 laps but at the same time is just four seconds slower at the end of the stint. I'd sure like to know what the suspension looks like. Airjordan interestingly runs sports but loses seven seconds despite only 15% tyre deg. Puffster loses six on sports with 20%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 12:28
|
|