F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

I thought I liked F1-2001, but now it's beginning to irritate me. I've patched it, downloaded various setups to see if it's just my lack of ability to set up a car, but still I'm not likeing it. The first clues that all was not right was being able to blast Becketts or Eau Rouge flat, always. Unless I use a completely unrealistic setup, sort of like the old GP1 fast lap setups with no rear wing and full front, I never lose the back end, even under braking, unless I get on the grass. I have understeer always, even doing strange things with roll stiffness. This seemed pretty strange, so I played around a little. I took all the wings off, jacked up the gears and ended up with a Williams which would top out at about 380kph. I imagine a little playing with the ride height would increase this a bit. Then I went to the Indy and drove the full oval. It was terrible. I could run high, low, or even saw away at the steering wheel in mid corner. No problems. I could violently swerve on the straights at 380 and never lose it. Note, I have no driving aids on. I was turning laps about as fast as the best CART/IRL laps, in a car with no aero, and driving like Jerry Lewis. Somehow this left me flat. Even GP3-2000 had a better fell under trail braking, or when dancing along with a car set up with minimal wing. When is someone going to finally get a F1 sim right, which has the mechanical grip problems at low speed, but accurate aero at high speeds? Stephen

> When is someone going to finally get a F1 sim right, which has the > mechanical grip problems at low speed, but accurate aero at high speeds? > > Stephen perhaps with your expertise you could have a go

The thing is that they've overdone the downforce values of the wings and the body. If you divide them by about three the car handles far more realistic. Try it. "Stephen F." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c90627f$[email hidden]... > I thought I liked F1-2001, but now it's beginning to irritate me. I've > patched it, downloaded various setups to see if it's just my lack ofability > to set up a car, but still I'm not likeing it. The first clues that allwas > not right was being able to blast Becketts or Eau Rouge flat, always. > Unless I use a completely unrealistic setup, sort of like the old GP1 fast > lap setups with no rear wing and full front, I never lose the back end,even > under braking, unless I get on the grass. I have understeer always, even > doing strange things with roll stiffness. This seemed pretty strange, soI > played around a little. I took all the wings off, jacked up the gears and > ended up with a Williams which would top out at about 380kph. I imagine a > little playing with the ride height would increase this a bit. Then Iwent > to the Indy and drove the full oval. It was terrible. I could run high, > low, or even saw away at the steering wheel in mid corner. No problems.I > could violently swerve on the straights at 380 and never lose it. Note, I > have no driving aids on. I was turning laps about as fast as the best > CART/IRL laps, in a car with no aero, and driving like Jerry Lewis.Somehow > this left me flat. Even GP3-2000 had a better fell under trail braking,or

Quoted text (9 lines)

> when dancing along with a car set up with minimal wing. > > When is someone going to finally get a F1 sim right, which has the > mechanical grip problems at low speed, but accurate aero at high speeds? > > Stephen > > >

"artie beamer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gQZj8.54543$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > When is someone going to finally get a F1 sim right, which has the > > mechanical grip problems at low speed, but accurate aero at high speeds? > > > > Stephen > > perhaps with your expertise you could have a go >

Hi Artie I would never suggest that I personally could do a better job. I'm not paid to write sims. I haven't spent years working on this stuff. I also don't expect the guys at ISI to be able to do my job. However, there's a question mark in the subject. I would be happy if someone would set me straight, say "download so-and-so's setup and you will see that you are completely wrong". But driving flat-out around the Indy oval with no wings and changing lines violently with no consequences doesn't seem plausible. Choosing multiple lines through Becketts or Eau Rouge, flat out, seems odd to me. Stephen

Based on this I see that F1/2001 is sort of an "honesty" sim. If you use the values that are available you can drive it like "Need for Speed"? I think I've been playing GPL too long. :-) I bought F1/2001 as a diversion to GPL, but I see I may have to shelf this title. :-( Tore "Harjan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Pj%j8.279945$hy4.11773803@Flipper... > > The thing is that they've overdone the downforce values of the wings andthe > body. If you divide them by about three the car handles far morerealistic.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Try it. > > > "Stephen F." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c90627f$[email hidden]... > > I thought I liked F1-2001, but now it's beginning to irritate me. I've > > patched it, downloaded various setups to see if it's just my lack of > ability > > to set up a car, but still I'm not likeing it. The first clues that all > was > > not right was being able to blast Becketts or Eau Rouge flat, always. > > Unless I use a completely unrealistic setup, sort of like the old GP1

fast > > lap setups with no rear wing and full front, I never lose the back end, > even > > under braking, unless I get on the grass. I have understeer always,even > > doing strange things with roll stiffness. This seemed pretty strange,so > I > > played around a little. I took all the wings off, jacked up the gearsand > > ended up with a Williams which would top out at about 380kph. I imaginea > > little playing with the ride height would increase this a bit. Then I > went > > to the Indy and drove the full oval. It was terrible. I could runhigh, > > low, or even saw away at the steering wheel in mid corner. No problems. > I > > could violently swerve on the straights at 380 and never lose it. Note,I

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > have no driving aids on. I was turning laps about as fast as the best > > CART/IRL laps, in a car with no aero, and driving like Jerry Lewis. > Somehow > > this left me flat. Even GP3-2000 had a better fell under trail braking, > or > > when dancing along with a car set up with minimal wing. > > > > When is someone going to finally get a F1 sim right, which has the > > mechanical grip problems at low speed, but accurate aero at high speeds? > > > > Stephen > > > > > > > >

"Harjan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Pj%j8.279945$hy4.11773803@Flipper... > > The thing is that they've overdone the downforce values of the wingsand the > body. If you divide them by about three the car handles far morerealistic. > Try it. > Well maybe I'm doing something wrong but that has not been my experience. I find that if I set my wings to give me speeds on the straights that are similar to real life, that my cornering speeds and lap times for the most part fall right into line also. There are admittedly a few corners where they got the elevation or the crown wrong and therefore people are able to take them at unrealistic speeds, but outside of those few places the physics seems to do a pretty good job of matching real world telemetry. The problem is that if you are either hotlapping or racing the AI there is no need to use a realistic setup. The AI are arbitrarily too slow on the straights, and when hotlapping you don't normally care about tire wear, so in either case you can crank the wings up to unrealistically high values and get away with it. If F1 2001 had a stronger online component so that we could see some really serious multiplayer racing, I think you would find that people would use more realistic setups, and I think that you would then see realistic speeds around most of the tracks. > > "Stephen F." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c90627f$[email hidden]... > > I thought I liked F1-2001, but now it's beginning to irritate me.I've > > patched it, downloaded various setups to see if it's just my lack of > ability > > to set up a car, but still I'm not likeing it. The first clues thatall > was > > not right was being able to blast Becketts or Eau Rouge flat,always. Real life drivers are able to take Eau Rouge flat. They normally don't because it is extremely difficult and dangerous. But as a sim driver you don't have to deal with either of those things. It's not as difficult for you because you are not being subjected to the G forces that they are. Think about how quickly and precisely you have to twitch the wheel to get through without lifting. Do you think you could still do that if you were being pounded around the cockpit while you were trying? Not just lateral loading either, but there has got to be a huge vertical load when you hit the bottom, and I don't know how they keep their lunch in when they go over the top. I don't think I could do it in real life, but without that G loading, it's just a simple twitch of the wheel, properly timed. And who cares if you crash in a sim? > > Unless I use a completely unrealistic setup, sort of like the oldGP1 fast > > lap setups with no rear wing and full front, I never lose the backend, > even > > under braking, unless I get on the grass. Not sure what is going on there. I find it pretty easy to kick the back end out, both when I want to and when I don't want to. ;o) > I have understeer always, even > > doing strange things with roll stiffness. This seemed prettystrange, so > I > > played around a little. I took all the wings off, jacked up thegears and > > ended up with a Williams which would top out at about 380kph. Iimagine a > > little playing with the ride height would increase this a bit. ThenI > went > > to the Indy and drove the full oval. It was terrible. I could runhigh, > > low, or even saw away at the steering wheel in mid corner. Noproblems. > I > > could violently swerve on the straights at 380 and never lose it.Note, I > > have no driving aids on. I was turning laps about as fast as thebest > > CART/IRL laps, in a car with no aero, and driving like Jerry Lewis. > Somehow > > this left me flat. Well that's certainly pretty weird, but again that just has not been my experience. I find it responds the way I would expect it to when I change anything in the setup. Not to be an ass or anything, but are you sure you saved the setup after you made those changes? That's the only thing I can think of. > Even GP3-2000 had a better fell under trail braking, > or > > when dancing along with a car set up with minimal wing. > > > > When is someone going to finally get a F1 sim right, which has the > > mechanical grip problems at low speed, but accurate aero at highspeeds? > > Now that's funny. That is one of the most common complaints about F1 2001 - lack of grip at low speeds and too much at high speeds. Oh well, can't please everybody. ;o)

f1-2001 would be the best sim in the world if online wasnt almost unplayable "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a6rgv0$h0i63$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (109 lines)

> "Harjan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Pj%j8.279945$hy4.11773803@Flipper... > > > > The thing is that they've overdone the downforce values of the wings > and the > > body. If you divide them by about three the car handles far more > realistic. > > Try it. > > > > Well maybe I'm doing something wrong but that has not been my > experience. I find that if I set my wings to give me speeds on the > straights that are similar to real life, that my cornering speeds and > lap times for the most part fall right into line also. There are > admittedly a few corners where they got the elevation or the crown wrong > and therefore people are able to take them at unrealistic speeds, but > outside of those few places the physics seems to do a pretty good job of > matching real world telemetry. The problem is that if you are either > hotlapping or racing the AI there is no need to use a realistic setup. > The AI are arbitrarily too slow on the straights, and when hotlapping > you don't normally care about tire wear, so in either case you can crank > the wings up to unrealistically high values and get away with it. If F1 > 2001 had a stronger online component so that we could see some really > serious multiplayer racing, I think you would find that people would use > more realistic setups, and I think that you would then see realistic > speeds around most of the tracks. > > > > > > "Stephen F." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c90627f$[email hidden]... > > > I thought I liked F1-2001, but now it's beginning to irritate me. > I've > > > patched it, downloaded various setups to see if it's just my lack of > > ability > > > to set up a car, but still I'm not likeing it. The first clues that > all > > was > > > not right was being able to blast Becketts or Eau Rouge flat, > always. > > Real life drivers are able to take Eau Rouge flat. They normally don't > because it is extremely difficult and dangerous. But as a sim driver > you don't have to deal with either of those things. It's not as > difficult for you because you are not being subjected to the G forces > that they are. Think about how quickly and precisely you have to twitch > the wheel to get through without lifting. Do you think you could still > do that if you were being pounded around the cockpit while you were > trying? Not just lateral loading either, but there has got to be a huge > vertical load when you hit the bottom, and I don't know how they keep > their lunch in when they go over the top. I don't think I could do it > in real life, but without that G loading, it's just a simple twitch of > the wheel, properly timed. And who cares if you crash in a sim? > > > > Unless I use a completely unrealistic setup, sort of like the old > GP1 fast > > > lap setups with no rear wing and full front, I never lose the back > end, > > even > > > under braking, unless I get on the grass. > > Not sure what is going on there. I find it pretty easy to kick the back > end out, both when I want to and when I don't want to. ;o) > > > I have understeer always, even > > > doing strange things with roll stiffness. This seemed pretty > strange, so > > I > > > played around a little. I took all the wings off, jacked up the > gears and > > > ended up with a Williams which would top out at about 380kph. I > imagine a > > > little playing with the ride height would increase this a bit. Then > I > > went > > > to the Indy and drove the full oval. It was terrible. I could run > high, > > > low, or even saw away at the steering wheel in mid corner. No > problems. > > I > > > could violently swerve on the straights at 380 and never lose it. > Note, I > > > have no driving aids on. I was turning laps about as fast as the > best > > > CART/IRL laps, in a car with no aero, and driving like Jerry Lewis. > > Somehow > > > this left me flat. > > Well that's certainly pretty weird, but again that just has not been my > experience. I find it responds the way I would expect it to when I > change anything in the setup. Not to be an ass or anything, but are you > sure you saved the setup after you made those changes? That's the only > thing I can think of. > > > Even GP3-2000 had a better fell under trail braking, > > or > > > when dancing along with a car set up with minimal wing. > > > > > > When is someone going to finally get a F1 sim right, which has the > > > mechanical grip problems at low speed, but accurate aero at high > speeds? > > > > > Now that's funny. That is one of the most common complaints about F1 > 2001 - lack of grip at low speeds and too much at high speeds. Oh well, > can't please everybody. ;o) > > >

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a6rgv0$h0i63$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Real life drivers are able to take Eau Rouge flat. They normally don't > because it is extremely difficult and dangerous. But as a sim driver > you don't have to deal with either of those things. It's not as > difficult for you because you are not being subjected to the G forces > that they are. Think about how quickly and precisely you have to twitch > the wheel to get through without lifting. Do you think you could still > do that if you were being pounded around the cockpit while you were > trying? Not just lateral loading either, but there has got to be a huge > vertical load when you hit the bottom, and I don't know how they keep > their lunch in when they go over the top. I don't think I could do it > in real life, but without that G loading, it's just a simple twitch of > the wheel, properly timed. And who cares if you crash in a sim?

True, the danger factor is gone. But I can take it flat, and take a variety of lines, and if I get the entry wrong, I can get off the gas and take a radically different exit without any consequences. > > > Not sure what is going on there. I find it pretty easy to kick the back > end out, both when I want to and when I don't want to. ;o) > Under acceleration sure, but under braking almost never (for me). Strange. > > change anything in the setup. Not to be an ass or anything, but are you > sure you saved the setup after you made those changes? That's the only > thing I can think of. > Don't worry, you're not an ass for making a helpful suggestion. Yes, I saved it. Otherwise I wouldn't have the warp speed top end. Sigh... it's a fun game, and I'll keep driving it, but it's still missing something for me. Stephen

"Stephen F." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c91a868$[email hidden]... > > "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:a6rgv0$h0i63$[email hidden]... > > > > > > Not sure what is going on there. I find it pretty easy to kick theback > > end out, both when I want to and when I don't want to. ;o) > > > > Under acceleration sure, but under braking almost never (for me).Strange. Ah, now that one I can help you with. Download Turner's setup editor from http://members.rogers.com:81/nwalkz/ and use it to set the brake pressure for all of your setups to 100%. Now get ready to relearn how to modulate your brake pedal. ;o)

Another thing to keep in mind is that setting the wings to zero doesn't remove them. They are still there, and they are still acting like wings. Plus the diffuser is still providing downforce. I did some rough calculations based on the Williams.hdv file, and at wing angles of zero there is still sufficient aerodynamics to generate over 600 lbs of downforce at 100 mph.