rec.autos.simulators

Is there a reason the cars can hit 210mph on these 2 tracks?

I finally sat down to do some racing somewhere besides WG/SP and was
wondering why the car didn't turn with full lock...   Can't speak for
anyone else and I'm not normally a nitpicker when it comes to details
like laptimes and speeds but I don't see how "increased realism"
results in being able to drive 15mph faster than the real cars.

Jason

I'm not sure why anybody thinks NR 2003 is more realistic.  Okay the tire
model and suspension model have been improved in some way based on real
data, but it has been said several times by the guy from Jasper that the
cars in NR 2003 have more grip and more HP than the real cars do.  In other
words it's a very realistic model of a race car that doesn't exist right
now.

Ah, that would also explain why the AI's laps at the Glen are 2
seconds faster than the current track record. =)

Pity N2002's damage model was never patched, I'd have no reason really
to run the new one.

Jason

Actually I have never seen him say the cars have more grip than the "real"
cars do.  Just more grip than 2k2 which was too low.  The same goes for HP.
If you aren't running it, you are missing out.  There is simply not a better
simulation of racing available, perfect nope, but better than 2k2.

Chad

Played with the AI a bit, seems like 97% keeps the speeds more in line
with real life at Daytona and the Glen (may have to bump up their qual
ability a bit at the plate tracks but haven't tested enough yet).  The
AI is still fiendish at 97%, and I'm realizing now that one of the big
improvements, at least at Daytona, is that they'll fight and block to
keep the low line.

Jason

How big was the pack you were in?  Online or offline?  Using a hotlap set-up
or one that would actually last a whole race?

Haven't seen 210 yet myself, but I spend as little time as possible at the
SS tracks.

In terms of turning, I can only assume that you didn't notice that the
default steering ratio on the big tracks is the slowest in the game (32).  I
crank mine down to 22 for the SS, 18 for everything else except the road
courses which need an even tighter ratio.  The car itself is more responsive
to steering input on the banked turns than it was in NR2002 and back.

Marc

Jason, stupid question from me, but are you sure it wasn't arcade mode?
Because I can't seem to get to 210 even in a 4 car pack.

Achim

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:03:00 +0100, "Joachim Trensz"

It was vs 100% AI with 'realistic' weather set (the temperature was in
the low 60's and it was overcast).

I'd imagine that race times in multiplayer are a bit slower.  That
said qualifying speeds over 190 in any weather conditions are a bit
excessive compared to what the real cars do with plates.  Not a huge
deal, but it does seem like once the car gets over 195 -200 it starts
to push really badly no matter how much you loosen it up - I've run no
front bar, full rear bar, full track bar, full rear weight, full
negative wedge, and lowered both front shocks until I was almost
scraping, and the car still wants to drift high racing the AI at 100%
strength.

I'm probably going to just continue running at 97% since the AI is
still great at the plate tracks (have to nudge the brakes a bit while
drafting which is realistic and the new AI does a great job of
blocking the low line even in the middle and rear of the pack).  97%
AI also puts the times at Watkins Glen into the low 1:12 range which
is a bit closer to reality as well (record is 1:11.9 IIRC).

I ran some more at Daytona in N2002 and I was seriously amazed at how
close the laptimes/speeds were to real life.  I would have assumed
that speeds would have stayed the same there in N2003 with the
restrictor plates and extra drag but I guess the added HP overcomes
that.  I'm very happy with other tracks I've tried so far, FWIW.
Would just like to see the HP with restrictor plates toned down ever
so slightly.

Jason

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:09:08 -0500, "Marc Collins"

Yeah.  I noticed that, but what I mean is that the car simply won't
turn - you end up with a nice long trail of skidmarks from your
outside tires as the car skids happily into the fence.  I've looseened
the car up as much as is humanly possible and it still does this at
the speeds the AI races at 100%.  As I mentioned earlier, real life
laps in a draft are around 47 seconds, in N2003 the qualifying laps
are in the low 46's even on a clear sunny day.  After going back to
N2002 I really wish I could pump the "aero push/loose" effect back up
to the levels in the N2003 demo (and the non plate tracks) and lower
the restricted engines output by a tiny bit (and/or add some drag).

I'm assuming online from what I've seen that the cars don't travel
fast enough in a draft to generate laps in excess of 200mph.  I
believe the times I've seen quoted for the fast setup were in the mid
45's.  Against 100% AI I've pulled 44.0's.

Anyway, I think a lot of the pushiness that people are attributing to
setups and "aero push" is actually the result of the excessive speeds
the cars are carrying into the turns.  This observation extends only
to the plate tracks (altho I fear the speeds people are doing at
Atlanta/Michigan/California).  In the previews for the sim, the Jasper
engineer indicated that the extra torque/horsepower would not result
in an increase in top speeds because of the added downforce/drag, but
it seems that's not the case at all.

Jason

Hi Jason,

the low 60's will probably add a bit, but I could also imagine that other
parameters like the 'rotating air' effect can come into play and have
differently noticeable effects on different tracks.

As for the AI, since making it is an almost completely new task for each new
track, I find it easy to imagine that the AI, as it has always been, is a
little more in line with real-life speeds on some tracks than on others. And
when the AI gives us a good draft, the player car will probably follow into
exaggerated speeds to an extent. I only need to look at the speeds my wife's
little grasshopper car reaches on the highway when she gets a good draft <g>

Achim

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:08:02 +0100, "Joachim Trensz"

No doubt, I just find it weird that qualifying speeds are higher than
the real life race speeds to begin with...

Jason

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:03:00 +0100, "Joachim Trensz"

Ok here are concrete examples, with my settings from a 10 lap sprint:

Simulation/Realistic Damage/1x Tire Wear
Realistic Weather - 55F cloudy wind 8mph N

Pole Time/Speed - 46.125/195.122mph
Fastest Race Lap/Speed - 44.067/204.235mph

Jason

Which Q-speeds do the real guys achieve?

Achim

...

Was that you or the AI? The fastest _I_ get in Q is around 50s.

Hence, the AI may be unrealistically fast at 100%, and in the race they may
pull you with them in their draft, but the player car physics seem to be in
line with the real thing.

Achim

...

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:35:07 +0100, "Joachim Trensz"

Here are pole times/speeds since the aero rules were changed in 2001:

2003-500 - Jeff Green - 48.230/186.606
2002-400 - Kevin Harvick - 48.910/185.041
2002-500 - Jimmie Johnson - 48.431/185.831
2001-400 - Sterling Marlin - 48.972/183.778
2001-500 - Bill Elliott - 49.029/183.565

One thing I'm curious about in N2003, is whether it models the extra
wind resistance the cars have at the SS tracks because of the aero
package they implemented in 2001.

Anyway, sim vs real speeds wouldn't be a big deal to me except that it
fundamentally alters the way you have to drive the tracks during a
race.  Above 200mph it's impossible to hold the low line in a turn
without lifting.

Jason