rec.autos.simulators

by **ymenar** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:11:14

>One ? will suffice.

?

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **ymenar** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:12:21

> No, he is saying they changed a part of the physics model and that is
> why it is different.

_duh_

Making it less noticable was a direct resultance of the modified physics
from N4 to NR2002. Again, _DUH_ why are you trying to achieve here????

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Jason Moy** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:20:37

>I'm saying that the pull to the left SHOULD be there if true realism is what
>is wanted.

>I thought you were saying the opposite, and that if the car pulls, it is
>unrealistic.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. I'll have to reread. I agree with you then, hehe.

Jason

by **Jason Moy** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:22:50

>Yes.

>I was running 2.5 on the left, and 3.5 on the right if I remember correctly.

Have you been putting any laps in at Atlanta, yet?

I converted the N2002 fast and qual setups to NT2k3 because they're
faster and much less pushy. The tires also seem to heat up a bit
less, I'm way over 300 on the front right in the default setup.

What I'm finding weird right now is that in order to get even temps at
most tracks I have to set the right side camber to positive? My
Atlanta setup currently has more positive camber on the right front
than the left front in order to get the temps even. Seems kinda odd
to me.

Jason

by **Jason Moy** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:25:44

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:58:07 -0400, Dastardly Dan

>No, he is saying they changed a part of the physics model and that is
>why it is different. You are saying they made it less noticable to
>make it more realistic. Make up your mind. Which is it? The two are
>not the same.

In addition to my other reply, it should be noted that if you build a
symmetrical setup and drive it on an oval, the car will track
straight. The default "easy" setups that ship with the game don't
pull to the left at all, at least the ones I've tried.

Jason

by **Jason Moy** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 07:23:56

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:58:07 -0400, Dastardly Dan

>No, he is saying they changed a part of the physics model and that is
>why it is different. You are saying they made it less noticable to
>make it more realistic. Make up your mind. Which is it? The two are
>not the same.

Honestly, I don't think they put it in as a canned response. One of
the Papyrus guys even mentioned that after they improved the camber
model, that the car was easier to drive and pulled left less. I
believe this was in one of the N2002 pre-release interviews, may have
been with Yasi.

Jason

by **JTBur** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:44:33

Did I do a bad thing?!!

Todd

by **John Pancoas** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:14:48

Yeah, I hear you. But don't be to sure about what he can do/say, even
informally. His Bud contract is void, i.e., if he's ever seen drinking
anything but Bud/AB products, if he's drinking beer. Anytime, anywhere,
with anyone.
According to him anyway, in an interview a few years back. Whether AH
would literally do that may be another question.

You're probably right........but then again, who knows.

John

> > Francois, you know better than to listen to driver product
endor***ts
> > <g> They'd say anything's the best if paid enough.

> Hmm John, Dale Jr. *races* online. He's there, racing against us. When
he
> talks there, he doesn't spout his typical PR that is require in NASCAR.

> Anyway, Papyrus doesn't pay anybody to endorse their products. EA does.
> Yet, everybody knows that in Winston Cup and BGN, they all race NR2002 to
> stay in mental racing shape and for the fun of racing. Not EA sim-arcade
> crap-o-tastic.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
> -- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
> Corporation - helping America into the New World...

by **Haqsa** » Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:32:35

Do you have a lot of stagger on the car? Maybe that's not the right
word, but if they measure camber relative to the vehicle coordinate
axes, and you have the right side of the vehicle higher than the left,
then it would be possible to have some positive camber on the right side
relative to the vehicle but still have negative camber relative to the
road.

> >Yes.

> >I was running 2.5 on the left, and 3.5 on the right if I remember
correctly.

> Have you been putting any laps in at Atlanta, yet?

> I converted the N2002 fast and qual setups to NT2k3 because they're
> faster and much less pushy. The tires also seem to heat up a bit
> less, I'm way over 300 on the front right in the default setup.

> What I'm finding weird right now is that in order to get even temps at
> most tracks I have to set the right side camber to positive? My
> Atlanta setup currently has more positive camber on the right front
> than the left front in order to get the temps even. Seems kinda odd
> to me.

> Jason

by **Larr** » Sun, 27 Oct 2002 02:59:35

I could have read your post wrong too. Either way, we got that straightened
out :)

-Larry

> >I'm saying that the pull to the left SHOULD be there if true realism is
what
> >is wanted.

> >I thought you were saying the opposite, and that if the car pulls, it is
> >unrealistic.

> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. I'll have to reread. I agree with you then, hehe.

> Jason

by **Larr** » Sun, 27 Oct 2002 03:06:02

I already brought that up. Something is screwy with the right-side camber.
I have to run +2.7 to get even tire temps on the right and +1.7 on the left.
Something is severely hosed here.

I still can't get the push out of it like I want, and it likes to stay loose
on exit. I know what to do, it just seems like you have to do an awful lot
of it.

I'm down to the low 29's at Atlanta.

-Larry

> >Yes.

> >I was running 2.5 on the left, and 3.5 on the right if I remember
correctly.

> Have you been putting any laps in at Atlanta, yet?

> I converted the N2002 fast and qual setups to NT2k3 because they're
> faster and much less pushy. The tires also seem to heat up a bit
> less, I'm way over 300 on the front right in the default setup.

> What I'm finding weird right now is that in order to get even temps at
> most tracks I have to set the right side camber to positive? My
> Atlanta setup currently has more positive camber on the right front
> than the left front in order to get the temps even. Seems kinda odd
> to me.

> Jason

by **Dave Henri** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:28:01

I'm no setup guru at all but shouldn't you be running -NEGATIVE- camber
on the outside?

dave henrie

> I already brought that up. Something is screwy with the right-side
camber.
> I have to run +2.7 to get even tire temps on the right and +1.7 on the
left.
> Something is severely hosed here.

> I still can't get the push out of it like I want, and it likes to stay
loose
> on exit. I know what to do, it just seems like you have to do an awful
lot
> of it.

> I'm down to the low 29's at Atlanta.

> -Larry

> > >Yes.

> > >I was running 2.5 on the left, and 3.5 on the right if I remember
> correctly.

> > Have you been putting any laps in at Atlanta, yet?

> > I converted the N2002 fast and qual setups to NT2k3 because they're
> > faster and much less pushy. The tires also seem to heat up a bit
> > less, I'm way over 300 on the front right in the default setup.

> > What I'm finding weird right now is that in order to get even temps at
> > most tracks I have to set the right side camber to positive? My
> > Atlanta setup currently has more positive camber on the right front
> > than the left front in order to get the temps even. Seems kinda odd
> > to me.

> > Jason

by **Jason Moy** » Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:27:51

That's the point we're making. You can run over a degree of positive
camber on the right front at many tracks in NT2k3 and still have tires
that are too hot on the inside.

Atlanta IMHO is admittedly a bad example because you do tend to run
less negative camber there, even in N2002.

Jason

by **Larr** » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:30:20

That's my point Henry :)

You have to run POSITIVE numbers on the right to get even tire temps. This
is all wrong.

Someone else noticed it and posted recently as well.

-Larry

> I'm no setup guru at all but shouldn't you be running -NEGATIVE- camber
> on the outside?

> dave henrie

> > I already brought that up. Something is screwy with the right-side
> camber.
> > I have to run +2.7 to get even tire temps on the right and +1.7 on the
> left.
> > Something is severely hosed here.

> > I still can't get the push out of it like I want, and it likes to stay
> loose
> > on exit. I know what to do, it just seems like you have to do an awful
> lot
> > of it.

> > I'm down to the low 29's at Atlanta.

> > -Larry

> > > >Yes.

> > > >I was running 2.5 on the left, and 3.5 on the right if I remember
> > correctly.

> > > Have you been putting any laps in at Atlanta, yet?

> > > I converted the N2002 fast and qual setups to NT2k3 because they're
> > > faster and much less pushy. The tires also seem to heat up a bit
> > > less, I'm way over 300 on the front right in the default setup.

> > > What I'm finding weird right now is that in order to get even temps at
> > > most tracks I have to set the right side camber to positive? My
> > > Atlanta setup currently has more positive camber on the right front
> > > than the left front in order to get the temps even. Seems kinda odd
> > > to me.

> > > Jason

rec.autos.simulators

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations

NT2003: Initial Observations