rec.autos.simulators

> Well, rightly so I think. What good would it be to release it when
it's
> only been half-fixed (half the parameters verified & tested ok, and
the
> other half sheer guesswork), as a kind of semi-beta alpha? We'd all
> complain ourselves silly after a few weeks. (It'd probably crash and
> cause all kinds of problems, too.)

> Better to wait a bit more and do it right, or at least as right as can

> been

>>fixed, changed, whatever you want to call it.  Iirc, one of the 65

> modders

>>said he had tried it.

>>  The above sounds more to me like looking for excuses, more than

> legitimate

>>reasons, especially since its already been done.

> Yes, the person that said it had been done was apparently wrong about it
> being 'fixed', although a modified '67 exe has apparently been created,
> along with several other 'test' exe's that are not planned for release
> any time soon such as a Caterham7 mod (physics only, no carset) to test
> front-engined physics.

> >>  Hmmm.......I  remember reading on rsc that the 67 exe HAS already

> > been

> >>fixed, changed, whatever you want to call it.  Iirc, one of the 65

> > modders

> >>said he had tried it.

> >>  The above sounds more to me like looking for excuses, more than

> > legitimate

> >>reasons, especially since its already been done.

> > Yes, the person that said it had been done was apparently wrong about it
> > being 'fixed', although a modified '67 exe has apparently been created,
> > along with several other 'test' exe's that are not planned for release
> > any time soon such as a Caterham7 mod (physics only, no carset) to test
> > front-engined physics.

> Yes there are numerous exe's available to the testers. I've driven '37,
> '55, '66, '68, '69 and '03 but they are all extremely rudimentary. Now
> the guys in the know know how to make them they are getting quicker at
> producing different sets and options within sets to tryout.

> The idea is that we can discuss and try out seasons to see which are the
> most entertaining to drive and which seasons will be the most
> entertaining to produce.

> On the other stuff about grip, the 65 cars have exactly the same overall
> grip as the 67s.

> The main difference is that the 65s have pretty much the same tyre width
> front and back so the cars have similar grip allround. The 67s have big
> fat tyres at the back so consequently the relative grip at the front is
> less than in the 65s. So, the cars 'feel' like they understeer more. In
> fact there isn't a lot in it because you have to take into account that
> you're approaching corners at much higher speed in a heavier car with a
> power excess to the rear wheels.

> > It just doesn't do what we all thought it did ie fixing the tyre model

> > > It just doesn't do what we all thought it did ie fixing the tyre
model
> flaw. It just modifies
> > > the settings & moves the problem somewhere else.

> > Well, in the 67s it possibly would, in the 65s it doesn't.
> > Or, the characteristics/parameters of these cars are such that it's
not
> > a real problem there. At least much less than in the 67s.

> > Question is however, if the flaw can ever be really 'fixed' (that
is,
> > applicable in all situations) without access to  the source codes.
And,
> > you'd have to be a good coder supported by an ace 'realism
inspection'
> team!

> > Regards, Rudy
> > --------------------
> > GPLRank: -22

> As you corner the tyrewall & tread blocks deflect, making the tyre
> contact patch 'crab' slightly as it rolls forwards. This effect is more
> pronounced as speed increases (the contact patch is rotating more
> quickly) so the faster you go the greater the 'crabbing'. The tyre has
> not gone beyond it's limit of static grip at this point, and the stiffer
> the tyre carcas the less this crabbing effect is felt. Basically the end
> result is that you get a bit of a warning before you exceed the limit of
> static grip.

> In gpl the amount of actual grip is okay at all speeds, but the crabbing
> effect (slip-angle) is constant at all speeds (it's just a number, not a
> formula, or possibly the formula is not complex enough) so although it
> feels okay at speed, when you are going slowly it feels like the tyres
> are deflecting too much.

> If the above is correct, the effect of reducing the slip-angle to
> correct the low-speed problem would be to make the car much harder to
> catch at high speeds (ie most of the time). The tyres wouldn't give as
> much warning before they let go.

> As far as fixing it is concerned I guess anything is possible with
> enough experience & time, but it's one thing to change a value, it's
> another problem entirely to replace the value with a formula to increase
> the value with speed. The gpl tyre model (the set of parameters &
> formulas that determine how the tyre behaves under varying conditions)
> is simpler than say NR2003, but in the majority of cases it's good
> enough. *** is very complicated to model accurately and even in real
> life tyre design is a bit of a black art ;-)

> I'm probably wrong about the detail points, but the basic effect is that
> at low speed the car drifts just as much as at high speed.

> Malc.

> > > > It just doesn't do what we all thought it did ie fixing the tyre
> model
> > flaw. It just modifies
> > > > the settings & moves the problem somewhere else.

> > > Well, in the 67s it possibly would, in the 65s it doesn't.
> > > Or, the characteristics/parameters of these cars are such that it's
> not
> > > a real problem there. At least much less than in the 67s.

> > > Question is however, if the flaw can ever be really 'fixed' (that
> is,
> > > applicable in all situations) without access to  the source codes.
> And,
> > > you'd have to be a good coder supported by an ace 'realism
> inspection'
> > team!

> > > Regards, Rudy
> > > --------------------
> > > GPLRank: -22