rec.autos.simulators

Gravity=9,81 right?

mjessick-Motorsim

Gravity=9,81 right?

by mjessick-Motorsim » Sat, 10 Nov 2001 00:35:36


> Hi!

> I don't doubt that the gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 is
> right but somehow it often looks too low for me.

The acceleration of gravity near the Earth's surface of course
varies from place to place, but that is a good estimate. ;)

I have discussed the same concern with game producers.
The problem as I see it is that few people have watched
cars hit abrupt steep ramps at 250 kph and leave
the ground. The effect of a 5 degree flight path angle
at 250 kph are, well, roughly 2.5 times as great ;)
as at a more normal speed of 100 kph.

Most games also have visual fields of view that
are compressed. If you aren't used to compensating for the
effects you can't really evaluate the motion properly.
Even if you drop the car from rest they will note the
apparent slow motion at the start of the acceleration
and ignore how fast the car has gotten just moments
later as it hits (as it does in real life.)

Another problem is that most people are bad at telling
time in small increments. I was once told that a 4 sec
drop test took 7 sec, with back of the envelope
calculations to show that our gravity must be very wrong.
The actual problem in this case was in the calibration
of the one-Mississippi two-Mississippi three-Mississippi
experimental equipment ;).

Depends on the upward component of the velocity as they leave the
ground. (How steep they are flying and how fast they are going.)

In games, an artist can easily put in several degrees of ramp

without noticing it. The "Looks flat to me" problem ;)

Also, see comments above about off the cuff time measurements :)

--
Matthew V. Jessick         Motorsims

Vehicle Dynamics Engineer  (972)910-8866 Ext.125, Fax: (972)910-8216

Ruud van Ga

Gravity=9,81 right?

by Ruud van Ga » Sat, 10 Nov 2001 02:10:46



Use a 3D vector gravity; 19.62 vertical force, and 9.81 in the other
directions. As seen from the body. Or the world, ehm. *Exploding head*
Might be something though so that when the car gets vertical it's
relative gravity vector (as if such things exist!) pulls downward with
only 9.81.

Problem is then back again when reaching the top of the looping, but
you may have to use 2 directional vectors for the Y, so Y down gives
the usual 9.81.

You may also ingore this babble, as it will not make things more
realistic. ;)

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/
Pencil art    : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Tony Whitle

Gravity=9,81 right?

by Tony Whitle » Fri, 09 Nov 2001 05:12:57

Yeah, 9.81 fps/s if you're a NASA rocket scientist ;-)
Dan Belch

Gravity=9,81 right?

by Dan Belch » Sat, 10 Nov 2001 08:15:49

You know what?  Most of the stuff that's been covered in this topic, I actually
understand.  I guess that even though my grades aren't really reflecting it, I
AM learning something in (Advanced) Physics class this year.  :)  I'm going on
about a low to mid B grade because my homework is always bad--the book we use
is VERY VERY difficult.  None of the questions are straightforward.  :(

BTW, we're doing impulse/impact right now, and I'm kinda confused.  :(

-----------------------------------------
Dan Belcher
Webmaster,
http://www.gplworld.racesim.net/simcrash

David Geesama

Gravity=9,81 right?

by David Geesama » Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:28:11

Just remember: impact and impulse forces in physics are highly
theoretical and make little intuitive sense (at least in my classes).  I
spent a week trying to think through the limits and stuff and only
really got it to work when I discarded my interest in reality.

Dave


> You know what?  Most of the stuff that's been covered in this topic, I actually
> understand.  I guess that even though my grades aren't really reflecting it, I
> AM learning something in (Advanced) Physics class this year.  :)  I'm going on
> about a low to mid B grade because my homework is always bad--the book we use
> is VERY VERY difficult.  None of the questions are straightforward.  :(

> BTW, we're doing impulse/impact right now, and I'm kinda confused.  :(

> -----------------------------------------
> Dan Belcher
> Webmaster,
> http://www.gplworld.racesim.net/simcrash

Don Jenning

Gravity=9,81 right?

by Don Jenning » Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:03:12

"MothaBrain" wrote ...

Back to your original question, yes <g>.  At least on this side of the pond, gravitational acceleration is approximately 32 ft/s2, which my simple math tells me is the same thing.  And I think the biggest problem with how "it often looks" is that the "hang time" of anything is one of the most deceptive things there is, especially when there's a high lateral movement involved.  Our eyes just don't do a very accurate job of measuring secondary movement, which is what the vertical component of a rally jump is, horizontal movement being the primary one.

Ruud van Ga

Gravity=9,81 right?

by Ruud van Ga » Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:13:56

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:03:12 -0500, "Don Jennings"


>"MothaBrain" wrote ...

>> I don't doubt that the gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 is
>> right but somehow it often looks too low for me.

>Back to your original question, yes <g>.  At least on this side of the pond, gravitational acceleration is approximately 32 ft/s2,

On another note; my gravity didn't suck <g> once because when jumping,
the suspension would get so loaded that its velocity got a bit big. I
then, in my check for an impossible suspension position, forgot to
reset the wheel velocity once the susp bottomed out. This meant if
wheelVel was 60 m/s, it would still be that way, and the spring would
take a long time to get the velocity back to 0 again. In the mean
time, some mean forces kept on pushing the car in the air.
So my gravity was there, but didn't do its job like it was supposed
to.

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/
Pencil art    : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.