rec.autos.simulators

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

and what is wrong with that? Give us air pressure adjustments and let us
run. Do you think that when the guys got to the track and 30 seconds before
the race started they would just throw in a different ramp angle or amount
of clutches into the differential? Do you think they would swap out springs
on a regular basis and take apart the suspension to put in a new bump ***
or lower the ride height? These guys would run what they brung. They show
up, throw it on the track and drive. It was a time of driver skill and who
had the better engine not a time of setup tweeks and digital telemetry. I
feel the game would have been better if the setups were limited more and the
racing was more about driver skill. I mean right now, -5 toe in at the
front is real fast in GPL. That isn't driver skill adding that extra time.
It is the setup getting those last few tenths of a second. Im sure the same
people would be at the top of the hot lap charts no matter WHAT type of
setup regulations were allowed but the margins would be closer and there
could be less emphasis on setups and more emphasis on driving. It would
also take away the frustration from the newbie driver that has no clue how
to tweak a setup.

OK enough of my rant. Talk later.

Jesse

>> 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)

by **Bill Met** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I don't know what kind of sound card you're using, but I most definitely
hear a scraping noise when the tub bottoms on the track. Now on the other
hand, if you're actually refering to all of the recent ride height
discussion brought about by Alison's Ferrari setups, that's about the
suspension bottoming on the bump ***s not the chassis bottoming on the
ground. Two completely different things.

Hitting the bump ***s is not something that can be heard in real life,
only felt. The only way I can think to model this in a sim would be with
graphics that mimic the old shoe polish trick. You "paint" the ends of
the bump ***s with white shoe polish before you go out on the track.
If there's shoe polish on the ends of the dampers when you come back into
the pits, then you know you've hit the bump ***s.
--
| "Instead of letting the moon be the
Bill Mette | gateway to our future, we have let
Enteract, Chicago | it become a brief chapter in our

by **Dan Belch** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Well guys, the only thing I really have to say about raising the ride height,
etc. is that this_isn't_real_life! It's just_a_game! It doesn't have to be
perfectly realistic and it never will be perfectly realistic. So just sit back
and have fun, no matter what the ride height is.

Dan Belcher
Team Racing Unlimited

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

Yeah guys, lets go race Nascar Revolution. Who cares how realistic it is.
Its just a game! Sorry I had to say that. No offense to you. Just wanted
to make a point.

Jesse

by **Kent Hosterma** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Game? Not for me it's not. This "game" has re-awakened a long dormant
enthusiasm for fast driving. Hell, I went out and bought GOING FASTER(Skip
Barber Racing School book). I'm pouring through this like I was back in
school. I study and then go out and try it on the track... oh, I mean I go
play the game. No, that doesn't work for me. GPL is a simulator in the
truest sense of the word. Actually I'm thinking of building a***pit
complete with built in CPU and monitor dedicated solely to GPL.

Cheers,
Kent Hosterman

by **Piers C. Structure** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Who are the purists but those who think they know best.

Is it though? care to provide references : I would be particularly
interested in what the 1967 F1 regulations said about implementation of
suspension, and interested to know what it would have been possible to
do to a car in the way of suspension tuning given an unlimited amount
of time and budget. My guess is almost anything in terms of ride height,
spring, roll bar and bump rates. Perhaps it's really an issue for the
physics model...

Personally, in online races I see anyone who can just stay on the track
for 12 laps as a great driver. :-).

--
Suck The Goat

by **Mike Cuddingto** » Fri, 02 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Viper racing has an excellent sound when the car bottoms out.

Mike

> >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.

> I don't know what kind of sound card you're using, but I most definitely
> hear a scraping noise when the tub bottoms on the track. Now on the other
> hand, if you're actually refering to all of the recent ride height
> discussion brought about by Alison's Ferrari setups, that's about the
> suspension bottoming on the bump ***s not the chassis bottoming on the
> ground. Two completely different things.

> Hitting the bump ***s is not something that can be heard in real life,
> only felt. The only way I can think to model this in a sim would be with
> graphics that mimic the old shoe polish trick. You "paint" the ends of
> the bump ***s with white shoe polish before you go out on the track.
> If there's shoe polish on the ends of the dampers when you come back into
> the pits, then you know you've hit the bump ***s.
> --
> | "Instead of letting the moon be the
> Bill Mette | gateway to our future, we have let
> Enteract, Chicago | it become a brief chapter in our

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sat, 03 Jul 1999 04:00:00

It is an historical simulation and therefore the adjustable parameters
should be as per history had them, IMO.

Simple as that.

> 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)

by **Dan Belch** » Sat, 03 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I didn't quite mean it that way though Jesse. But thanks for calling me on
that. I guess I'd better explain a little better. What I meant was really
that no game will ever be a perfect simulation of real life. We can't program
all the kinds of variables that occur in real life and I doubt that we'll ever
be able to do so realistically. So, is there anything really wrong with GPL
now? It's the best simulator on the market, even if the ride height isn't
completely correct to real life. So, don't fret and just enjoy how much better
it is than NASCAR Revulsion even though it's not completely perfect. That
better?

Dan Belcher
Team Racing Unlimited

by **Stephen Barnet** » Sat, 03 Jul 1999 04:00:00

A driver could not ask for a minimum ride height of .00001 inches. The
suspension could not move that far. He would not in 1967 even to be able to
ask for 1 inch, or 2 inch. The geometry will not allow it. The Carrol Smith
book Tune to Win shows how to make a cardboard model of a cars suspension in
order to test the movement. If you have the book, I can supply the drawings
for the Lotus 49 rear suspension so you can prove this for yourself.
Steve

>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)

by **Stephen Barnet** » Sat, 03 Jul 1999 04:00:00

This newsgroup is called rec.autos.simulators. Maybe you posted to the wrong
group.
Steve

by **Matthew Birger Knutse** » Sat, 03 Jul 1999 04:00:00

> A driver could not ask for a minimum ride height of .00001 inches. The
> suspension could not move that far. He would not in 1967 even to be able to
> ask for 1 inch, or 2 inch. The geometry will not allow it. The Carrol Smith
> book Tune to Win shows how to make a cardboard model of a cars suspension in
> order to test the movement. If you have the book, I can supply the drawings
> for the Lotus 49 rear suspension so you can prove this for yourself.
> Steve

Ah, waited for somebody to say that:)
Thanks, Steve!
Well, really, if you took the suspension arms and bent them a bit ? <g>

Matt

--
Matthew Birger Knutsen

Cheek Racing Cars
http://www.cheekracing.electra.no

by **asgeir nes?e** » Sat, 03 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Yeah, that's the problem. People aren't interested in realistic setups, they are
interested in going as fast as possible, and this is where things didn't turn
out to be as Papy meant.

---Asgeir---

> 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

by **asgeir nes?e** » Sat, 03 Jul 1999 04:00:00

No that was not what I meant, then I must be expressing myself poorly.

Anyway, what I meant was the each car could have it's own setup window, if the
car couldn't be lower than 4 inches, let it be like that. If a car had an ARB
with max stiffness 150 lbs/inch, let it be like that.

In a way, the extremities of the setup menu could differ from one car to the
other. To narrow in on the realistic "window" on each car. Adjustable setup
options like we have, but different extremities...

---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.

> >snipped your nice long personality list<

by **asgeir nes?e** » Sat, 03 Jul 1999 04:00:00

And if the struts could be bent, the drive axle universal joints would seize after
3 laps, because of the adverse angle between output shaft and axle...

---Asgeir---

> > A driver could not ask for a minimum ride height of .00001 inches. The
> > suspension could not move that far. He would not in 1967 even to be able to
> > ask for 1 inch, or 2 inch. The geometry will not allow it. The Carrol Smith
> > book Tune to Win shows how to make a cardboard model of a cars suspension in
> > order to test the movement. If you have the book, I can supply the drawings
> > for the Lotus 49 rear suspension so you can prove this for yourself.
> > Steve

> Ah, waited for somebody to say that:)
> Thanks, Steve!
> Well, really, if you took the suspension arms and bent them a bit ? <g>

> Matt

> --
> Matthew Birger Knutsen

> Cheek Racing Cars
> http://www.cheekracing.electra.no

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