After installing 1.2.0.0 I noticed something diffrent.
With 1.1.0.3 I could lap very consistant all day in the lotus.
The lotus was a pleasure to drive !!!!!
( setup Ricardo Nunnini works briljant !!!!! thanks Ricardo !!!!)
Now with 1.2.0.0 same car same setup I am all over the place.
Spinning of all the time.
So I think the physics have changed.
What do you guys think ??????
Glenn
Regards,
Gordon
Any ideas ?????
Glenn
Gordon McLachlan heeft geschreven in bericht
--
Ian Parker
UKGPL League
http://www.btinternet.com/~ukgpl/index.html
--
> Were you a low-rider? The minimum rid-height is now 2.5 inches. That would make
> a difference in your setups.
low rider setups are less stable ?
please help.
--
====================================
Sebastien Tixier - Game Developer
http://www.eden-studios.fr
http://www.multimania.com/hclyon
> > Were you a low-rider? The minimum rid-height is now
> > 2.5 inches. That would make a difference in your setups.
> Whats the difference in driving between low riding and high riding ?
> low rider setups are less stable ?
> please help.
Hope this helps.
-Chris-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Cheers,
Steve B.
> What do you guys think ??????
--
Mark
London UK
Yamaha TRX850
Chris
doordocs(at)3wave(dot)com
kill spam
if reply to email.......please remove "godalejr"
We are 6 miles from the world's fastest half mile.
I sure did but at the time no one else seemed to suffer from the same
problem. This is what I wrote on 29th of September after trying out the
German 1.2.0.0 patch:
<OLD STUFF>
After one lap at the Ring I didn't know what to think. The car seemed to
understeer like a pig with my usual setup which normally provides a
manageable oversteer, making the car delightfully lively around the
twisty circuit.
I've been away from GPL for a few weeks, so first thing that came into my
mind was: "Jesus, now I've really lost the touch." But as it felt more
like an Exxon tanker than a '67 GP car, I had to try the 1.1.0.3 to be
sure - and wham, the Ferrari was back to its normal self.
</OLD STUFF>
But a little bit later the problem just disappeared and instead of the
horrible understeer my setups began to feel exactly the same as in
1.1.0.3. This happened just when I was about to give the 1.2.0.0 one
final go and fiddle around with setups as I had begun to suspect that
SOMEHOW, DESPITE of the CORRECT SETUP NAME and NUMBERS in the car setup
screen I was actually using a different setup (I've experimented with
several different ones and still have those around in my setups folder).
Just for the hell of it, try saving your usual setup with some other name
and then use that. Try out different setups, and see how they feel. I
haven't got a clue of what could cause this anomaly but it must be real
since several people have already experienced it. Pure X-files material.
---
Antti Markus Peteri
15 miles. your dim light shines from so far away
- Soul Asylum, Promises Broken
Hello Chris,
I thought 'downforce' had something to do with it too? The lower your RH the
more downforce you experience (i.o.w. the cars is more glued to the track thus
allowing cornering at higher speeds!)
Jan.
> > > Were you a low-rider? The minimum rid-height is now
> > > 2.5 inches. That would make a difference in your setups.
> > Whats the difference in driving between low riding and high riding ?
> > low rider setups are less stable ?
> > please help.
> The lower you can place the center of gravity of a car to the
> ground, the more stable the car will behave. A higher center
> of gravity will allow the car to roll more. The greater roll
> also takes longer to occur, thus making the car more unstable
> during transitions. A lower center of gravity will result in
> lower amounts of roll and, correspondingly, faster and more
> stable directional transitions. In GPL, a lower ride height
> will lower the center of gravity. A higher ride height will
> raise the center of gravity.
> Hope this helps.
> -Chris-
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
|
J.H.Hovius.vcf < 1K Download |
> --
> Mark
> London UK
> Yamaha TRX850
> > Hi Guys
> > After installing 1.2.0.0 I noticed something diffrent.
> > With 1.1.0.3 I could lap very consistant all day in the lotus.
> > The lotus was a pleasure to drive !!!!!
> > ( setup Ricardo Nunnini works briljant !!!!! thanks Ricardo !!!!)
> > Now with 1.2.0.0 same car same setup I am all over the place.
> > Spinning of all the time.
> > So I think the physics have changed.
> > What do you guys think ??????
> > Glenn
> I thought 'downforce' had something to do with it too? The
> lower your RH the more downforce you experience (i.o.w. the
> cars is more glued to the track thus allowing cornering at
> higher speeds!)
> > > > Were you a low-rider? The minimum rid-height is now
> > > > 2.5 inches. That would make a difference in your setups.
> > > Whats the difference in driving between low riding and
> > > high riding ?
> > > low rider setups are less stable ?
> > > please help.
> > The lower you can place the center of gravity of a car to the
> > ground, the more stable the car will behave. A higher center
> > of gravity will allow the car to roll more. The greater roll
> > also takes longer to occur, thus making the car more unstable
> > during transitions. A lower center of gravity will result in
> > lower amounts of roll and, correspondingly, faster and more
> > stable directional transitions. In GPL, a lower ride height
> > will lower the center of gravity. A higher ride height will
> > raise the center of gravity.
> > Hope this helps.
> > -Chris-
Yes it is. Not sure how significant the effect is (presumably not
very) but it's still quite definitely true.
: They weren't designed with any aerodynamic
: downforce considerations.
Your point being? I'm sure the cars were designed with rudimentary
aero considerations (smooth is better than "lumpy") - but designing in
ignorance of the physics does not remove the actual physics. A modern
road car isn't designed to produce downforce but it still does (well,
OK - actually it produces a slight amount of lift - call it negative
downforce if you like).
: Papy also didn't include any
: aerodynamics other than simple drag and drafting.
That's a bit of an oversight surely? I'd have thought at least some
kind of lift/downforce effect as appropriate would be VITAL. You only
have to look at BTCC racing to realise that the smallest aero effect can
cause huge handling alteration. The touring cars run tiny rear wings
(wings dignifies them really) but if one loses that wing they are
uncompetetive. If a 5cm wide (approx) strip of metal has a significant
aero effect then the damn great ugly hunks of metal poking out of the
back of the '67 race cars certainly did SOMETHING to the aerodynamics
_regardless of whether the designers knew that this was happening_.
Aside - it always puzzles me the order in which things were invented
in car racing - tuned length exhausts for performance were invented
in... well certainly by the 30s - don't know when they were actually
come up with - but it wasn't until the 60s that slicks and wings were
thought of. To me slicks and wings seem "obvious" - tuned length
exhaust pipes on the other hand....
--
Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York.
www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html
