rec.autos.simulators

by **Ian La** » Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Yep, that's right, I want a "realistic" ride height, and I don't
believe 2.5inches will be seen as "realistic" to the purists.

If you don't at least explain why you have chosen 2.5inches as the new
ride height? There has to be a reason? I'm sure all the purists would
like to know why you have still chosen a ride height which is
historically at least, too low?

If you raise it to 4inches, that way, when I go out on the track with
my coventry at spa, and beat the lotii, I will be seen as a great
driver and not just another guy probably using a low-rider....

Ian

/\ 7:57 at the ring using "realistic" ride heights /\

by **Robert Grave** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

High or low, I think your still very fast judging by the times posted
everywhere and on online races I've been againts you.

Maybe my nice comments deserve free personal tips and setups ? =:-D

Robert
Hull, Qubec

by **asgeir nes?e** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

So, you want them to raise the car because you don't want to be accused of
low-riding and NOT because it is autentic? Huh? Hey man, you're driving
this sim with the wrong motivation!

;-)

But, seriously, why should ride heights below 4 inches be allowed in the
game when they didn't use that in -67? And why should we be ablt to
finetune the arbs in the game when they couldn't do this in -67? Or
dampers? And the number 1 to 5 used with dampers, what does they mean?
Does "2" give the double stiffness at a given frequency in comparison to
1? What frequenzy btw? And when we heard that the Brabham used spring
stiffnesses of 65 yo 75 lbs/inch, why should we allow 50 or 100?

Couldn't they limit the setup high and lowmarks in relation to the
specific cars? Lack of info from the car engineers at that time?

---Asgeir---

> Yep, that's right, I want a "realistic" ride height, and I don't
> believe 2.5inches will be seen as "realistic" to the purists.

> If you don't at least explain why you have chosen 2.5inches as the new
> ride height? There has to be a reason? I'm sure all the purists would
> like to know why you have still chosen a ride height which is
> historically at least, too low?

> If you raise it to 4inches, that way, when I go out on the track with
> my coventry at spa, and beat the lotii, I will be seen as a great
> driver and not just another guy probably using a low-rider....

> Ian

> /\ 7:57 at the ring using "realistic" ride heights /\

by **Christer Andersso** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I _can_ understand why they've allowed more setup freedom than was available
in reality. Since the physics engine is an approximization of the real
thing, you never know if you got it right, not even Papy themself. If you
allow some more freedom with the setups it will be possible to fine tune the
physics to act more realistic.

I _can_ also understand why they allowed ride heights lower than what they
drove in reality, but since the physics engine cant handle low ride heights
they shouldn't have allowed it in GPL. If the physics could handle low ride
heights and it was possible to set the ride heights to such low values back
then, then I guess it should be implemented like this... but I'm not sure
:o).

I'm guessing they think the physics engine can handle 2.5 inch ride heights.
If so then we will "all" drive 2.5 inch ride heigths cause we're not afraid
the car will bottom out at Eau de Rouge, cause we cant die in GPL. Or we
stiffen the cars springs to the max, which works just fine in GPL, but would
work just terribly in reality...

/Christer

>But, seriously, why should ride heights below 4 inches be allowed in the
>game when they didn't use that in -67? And why should we be ablt to
>finetune the arbs in the game when they couldn't do this in -67? Or
>dampers? And the number 1 to 5 used with dampers, what does they mean?
>Does "2" give the double stiffness at a given frequency in comparison to
>1? What frequenzy btw? And when we heard that the Brabham used spring
>stiffnesses of 65 yo 75 lbs/inch, why should we allow 50 or 100?

>Couldn't they limit the setup high and lowmarks in relation to the
>specific cars? Lack of info from the car engineers at that time?

>---Asgeir---

>> Yep, that's right, I want a "realistic" ride height, and I don't
>> believe 2.5inches will be seen as "realistic" to the purists.

>> If you don't at least explain why you have chosen 2.5inches as the new
>> ride height? There has to be a reason? I'm sure all the purists would
>> like to know why you have still chosen a ride height which is
>> historically at least, too low?

>> If you raise it to 4inches, that way, when I go out on the track with
>> my coventry at spa, and beat the lotii, I will be seen as a great
>> driver and not just another guy probably using a low-rider....

>> Ian

>> /\ 7:57 at the ring using "realistic" ride heights /\

by **Mark E. Moone** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I would like to really hear the car scratch and yowl when the tub hit.
Right now, other than the adverse handling when the tub hits, I can't
tell when it does.

BTW, does GPL dump have a readout for bottoming out like the old
telemetry in GP2 did?

MM

by **Toni Lassi** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Hmm Ian, I think everyone knows you're just as fast low or high. In
fact, I think Papy should put in a piece of code that sets the ride
height to 10" and removes one wheel if the drivers name is Ian Lake or
Wolfgang Woeger, just to make an even field for all of us.

by **Neil Rain** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

> I would like to really hear the car scratch and yowl when the tub hit.
> Right now, other than the adverse handling when the tub hits, I can't
> tell when it does.

It already does this - you get a horrible scraping noise and sparks
coming from under the car (obviously you have to watch an external view
for this!).

There are only a few places where you can really bottom out - notably
Mosport, just before the hairpin, and (with low-ish ride height) at
Brands Hatch on the approach to Dingle Dell.

Maybe the adverse handling you've experienced was the suspension hitting
the bump-stops - I certainly would like there to be a (different)
warning noise for that situation (maybe some kind of "doink" sound).

by **Matthias Fla** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

It's hard to really bottom out a car in Monza or Silverstone, but try
the Nurburgring then.
AFAIK Jackie Stewart once said that on the Ring, the car jumps 13
times per lap, and they had to use all the bump *** available to
prevent the car from grinding itself to pieces.

--
Matthias Flatt

by **Randy Cassid** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Say, now! There's an idea I can sink my teeth into! It'll add another
few weeks to the patch, but should be well worth it... :-)

Randy

by **Michael Barlo** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I'm curious... why would we want a minimum ride height of 4 inches?
Seams to me that "in real life" if a driver of a car wanted a SRH of
0.00001 inches he could have it. He would be scraping the ground a lot
and would probably last a half a lap before the tub was ground
through.... But still, he could have had it.

My opinion is that if you were to have a "low rider" setup, the car
should act the way the low rider setup would in "real life" by scraping
the tub a lot and loosing speed, and/or be almost undrivable through a
corner, fall apart after a full lap, ect..

My opinion is that the SRH minimum shouldn't be fixed but the results
of a low SRH and week springs should.

Mike Barlow

--
=========================================
Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing?
=========================================
Member of R.O.R. 1999
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~marknjess/ror.html
=========================================
Racing online with the help of......

Mark Seery ***sports
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Sim Racing Mag
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Race Communications Association
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Holodyne Engineering

Mystic Music

(have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)

mikeba.vcf
< 1K Download

by **Michael Barlo** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

> So, you want them to raise the car because you don't want to be accused of
> low-riding and NOT because it is autentic? Huh? Hey man, you're driving
> this sim with the wrong motivation!

> ;-)

> But, seriously, why should ride heights below 4 inches be allowed in the
> game when they didn't use that in -67? And why should we be ablt to
> finetune the arbs in the game when they couldn't do this in -67? Or
> dampers? And the number 1 to 5 used with dampers, what does they mean?
> Does "2" give the double stiffness at a given frequency in comparison to
> 1? What frequenzy btw? And when we heard that the Brabham used spring
> stiffnesses of 65 yo 75 lbs/inch, why should we allow 50 or 100?

> Couldn't they limit the setup high and lowmarks in relation to the
> specific cars? Lack of info from the car engineers at that time?

> ---Asgeir---

No offense intended (only because this is the second message in this
thread that I have read) but seams to me that you are after the exact
same setup that was used for each individual track and each individual
car rather then the concept of creating your own setup. Or another way
to say this.. you don't want a setup page included in the Sim because
that means that we could change something.

--
=========================================
Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing?
=========================================
Member of R.O.R. 1999
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~marknjess/ror.html
=========================================
Racing online with the help of......

Mark Seery ***sports
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Sim Racing Mag
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Race Communications Association
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Holodyne Engineering

Mystic Music

(have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)

mikeba.vcf
< 1K Download

by **Greger Hut** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Agreed, I would like to see minimum ride height set to 3.5 or 4
inches, too. I was testing with 2.5 ride heights at Silverstone today,
I did a 1:25.9 after some tweaking to the setup. Once I got rid of the
terrible understeer the car was very nice to drive, even if I hit the
curbs on those two corners I was still able to catch it.

I think I will start experimenting with even higher ride heights and
see how this affects the car. If I can get good results I might start
using these new setups for online racing and hotlapping. Well, at
least after the patch is out.

So Papy, set it to 3.5 or 4 inch. minimum and settle this. Although,
it's probably too late to make changes anymore. :(

Yes, I would also like to know this. I asked about this in other
thread but haven't got an answer yet. As you said, there has to be a
good reason. I'm sure that the Papy guys know that in real-life they
didn't use ride heights this low.

--
Greger Huttu

by **Nigel Nichol** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

One approach to a corner at Brands Hatch does it even time.
--

Redline Race Controls

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/9045/

Nigel of Lakewood Motorsports
Hamilton
New Zealand

by **Jesse Blac** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

so they gave us the freedom to have realistic physics through setup
modification but people dont want an authentic setup. They want a fast
setup so they do the exact opposite and abuse the lack of a COMPLETELY
realistic physics model.

My thoughts

>I _can_ understand why they've allowed more setup freedom than was
available
>in reality. Since the physics engine is an approximization of the real
>thing, you never know if you got it right, not even Papy themself. If you
>allow some more freedom with the setups it will be possible to fine tune
the
>physics to act more realistic.

>I _can_ also understand why they allowed ride heights lower than what they
>drove in reality, but since the physics engine cant handle low ride heights
>they shouldn't have allowed it in GPL. If the physics could handle low ride
>heights and it was possible to set the ride heights to such low values back
>then, then I guess it should be implemented like this... but I'm not sure
>:o).

>I'm guessing they think the physics engine can handle 2.5 inch ride
heights.
>If so then we will "all" drive 2.5 inch ride heigths cause we're not afraid
>the car will bottom out at Eau de Rouge, cause we cant die in GPL. Or we
>stiffen the cars springs to the max, which works just fine in GPL, but
would
>work just terribly in reality...

>/Christer

>>But, seriously, why should ride heights below 4 inches be allowed in the
>>game when they didn't use that in -67? And why should we be ablt to
>>finetune the arbs in the game when they couldn't do this in -67? Or
>>dampers? And the number 1 to 5 used with dampers, what does they mean?
>>Does "2" give the double stiffness at a given frequency in comparison to
>>1? What frequenzy btw? And when we heard that the Brabham used spring
>>stiffnesses of 65 yo 75 lbs/inch, why should we allow 50 or 100?

>>Couldn't they limit the setup high and lowmarks in relation to the
>>specific cars? Lack of info from the car engineers at that time?

>>---Asgeir---

>>> Yep, that's right, I want a "realistic" ride height, and I don't
>>> believe 2.5inches will be seen as "realistic" to the purists.

>>> If you don't at least explain why you have chosen 2.5inches as the new
>>> ride height? There has to be a reason? I'm sure all the purists would
>>> like to know why you have still chosen a ride height which is
>>> historically at least, too low?

>>> If you raise it to 4inches, that way, when I go out on the track with
>>> my coventry at spa, and beat the lotii, I will be seen as a great
>>> driver and not just another guy probably using a low-rider....

>>> Ian

>>> /\ 7:57 at the ring using "realistic" ride heights /\

by **Jesse Blac** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

see thats the thing. If he asked for it, he would get it. The thing is, in
real like IT ISNT THAT FAST. The physics model needs to be adjusted to
where a 1 in. ride hight will scrape the ground a lot and cause for a whole
bunch of problems. Right now it currently doesn't thus the only way to move
away from this abusing the physics model it to raise the ride heights. I am
guessing it would be tough for papy to go in and redesign their physics
model to include abusing the car with low ride heights.

Jesse

>I'm curious... why would we want a minimum ride height of 4 inches?
>Seams to me that "in real life" if a driver of a car wanted a SRH of
>0.00001 inches he could have it. He would be scraping the ground a lot
>and would probably last a half a lap before the tub was ground
>through.... But still, he could have had it.

> My opinion is that if you were to have a "low rider" setup, the car
>should act the way the low rider setup would in "real life" by scraping
>the tub a lot and loosing speed, and/or be almost undrivable through a
>corner, fall apart after a full lap, ect..

> My opinion is that the SRH minimum shouldn't be fixed but the results
>of a low SRH and week springs should.

>Mike Barlow

>--
>=========================================
>Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing?
>=========================================
>Member of R.O.R. 1999
>http://www.racesimcentral.net/~marknjess/ror.html
>=========================================
>Racing online with the help of......

>Mark Seery ***sports
>http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>Sim Racing Mag
>http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>Race Communications Association
>http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>Holodyne Engineering

>Mystic Music

>(have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)

rec.autos.simulators

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch