diffrence in psysics 1.1.0.3 and 1.2.0.0 ????

Hi Guys After installing 1.2.0.0 I noticed something diffrent. With 1.1.0.3 I could lap very consistant all day in the lotus. The lotus was a pleasure to drive !!!!! ( setup Ricardo Nunnini works briljant !!!!! thanks Ricardo !!!!) Now with 1.2.0.0 same car same setup I am all over the place. Spinning of all the time. So I think the physics have changed. What do you guys think ?????? Glenn

Were you a low-rider? The minimum rid-height is now 2.5 inches. That would make a difference in your setups. Regards, Gordon

I was a lowrider in 1.0.0.0 But since 1.1.0.3 lowriding wasn't allowed. And I was quick and steady in 1.1.0.3 So that can't be the problem Any ideas ????? Glenn Gordon McLachlan heeft geschreven in bericht

The physics feel different to me too, but more stable rather than unstable. There is no difference in ride height between 1.1.0.3 and 1.2.0.0, they both use 2.5 inch wheras version 1 used 1 inch. -- Ian Parker UKGPL League http://www.btinternet.com/~ukgpl/index.html --

> Were you a low-rider? The minimum rid-height is now 2.5 inches. That would make > a difference in your setups. Whats the difference in driving between low riding and high riding ? low rider setups are less stable ? please help. -- ==================================== Sebastien Tixier - Game Developer http://www.eden-studios.fr http://www.multimania.com/hclyon

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Were you a low-rider? The minimum rid-height is now > > 2.5 inches. That would make a difference in your setups. > Whats the difference in driving between low riding and high riding ? > low rider setups are less stable ? > please help.

The lower you can place the center of gravity of a car to the ground, the more stable the car will behave. A higher center of gravity will allow the car to roll more. The greater roll also takes longer to occur, thus making the car more unstable during transitions. A lower center of gravity will result in lower amounts of roll and, correspondingly, faster and more stable directional transitions. In GPL, a lower ride height will lower the center of gravity. A higher ride height will raise the center of gravity. Hope this helps. -Chris- Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

The 1.2.0.0 FAQ at VROC states there are no physics changes from 1.1.0.3, and I can't say that I've noticed what you mention. A possibility is that you were getting a small bit of slo-mo and now that you're in real time again, the car seems touchier. My situation was the opposite; 1.1.0.3 ran quicker than real time, so 1.2.0.0 seems a bit easier to drive. That extra tenth or so in each corner puts a lot less stress on reaction time. Cheers, Steve B.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> After installing 1.2.0.0 I noticed something diffrent. > With 1.1.0.3 I could lap very consistant all day in the lotus. > The lotus was a pleasure to drive !!!!! > ( setup Ricardo Nunnini works briljant !!!!! thanks Ricardo !!!!) > Now with 1.2.0.0 same car same setup I am all over the place. > Spinning of all the time. > So I think the physics have changed. > What do you guys think ??????

I agree, something definitely feels different, feels like I can push the car harder and still keep it on the track, what wheel are you using, I'm using MSFF, maybe theve tweaked the controls slightly. On another note about 1.1 / 1.2 dirrerences, on my low spec system (p233mmx voodoo1 64meg ram) it also seems to run slower. With 1.1 I was suffering with slo/mo, and no matter what graphics etc. I turned on or off I would always read 24 to 28 FPS, but in training it always ran reasonably smooth, and in single race it was still playable after the first bend or so. Now with 1.2, no slo/mo but lots of slow down, I get different/appropriate frame rates with different graphics settings, but even with everything turned off (about 30 to 34 FPS) the screen seems to update slowly, It sometimes looks more like 8 to 10 FPS. And forget racing it's unplayable. any ideas anyone. -- Mark London UK Yamaha TRX850

They feel more stable allright...theyre like driving a snowplow. I had really good setups in 1.0 for the Eagle which i modified slightly for 1.1.0.3 and i was still fast. Now my setup plows so bad in corners i cant drive it. Ive gone back to 1.0 for now but still using the 2.5 inch ride height. Anyone else notice the tremendous understeer? Chris

My copy of N3 arrived today.......FedX..... Started out using the ace set-ups and felt like Darrell Waltrip...........Then I went to N2 and printed out my set-ups , and damn it's closer than you think.........I started clicking off lap times quicker than N2 and still running up front...... Joey...... doordocs(at)3wave(dot)com kill spam if reply to email.......please remove "godalejr" We are 6 miles from the world's fastest half mile.

I sure did but at the time no one else seemed to suffer from the same problem. This is what I wrote on 29th of September after trying out the German 1.2.0.0 patch: <OLD STUFF> After one lap at the Ring I didn't know what to think. The car seemed to understeer like a pig with my usual setup which normally provides a manageable oversteer, making the car delightfully lively around the twisty circuit. I've been away from GPL for a few weeks, so first thing that came into my mind was: "Jesus, now I've really lost the touch." But as it felt more like an Exxon tanker than a '67 GP car, I had to try the 1.1.0.3 to be sure - and wham, the Ferrari was back to its normal self. </OLD STUFF> But a little bit later the problem just disappeared and instead of the horrible understeer my setups began to feel exactly the same as in 1.1.0.3. This happened just when I was about to give the 1.2.0.0 one final go and fiddle around with setups as I had begun to suspect that SOMEHOW, DESPITE of the CORRECT SETUP NAME and NUMBERS in the car setup screen I was actually using a different setup (I've experimented with several different ones and still have those around in my setups folder). Just for the hell of it, try saving your usual setup with some other name and then use that. Try out different setups, and see how they feel. I haven't got a clue of what could cause this anomaly but it must be real since several people have already experienced it. Pure X-files material. --- Antti Markus Peteri 15 miles. your dim light shines from so far away - Soul Asylum, Promises Broken

Hello Chris, I thought 'downforce' had something to do with it too? The lower your RH the more downforce you experience (i.o.w. the cars is more glued to the track thus allowing cornering at higher speeds!) Jan.

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > > Were you a low-rider? The minimum rid-height is now > > > 2.5 inches. That would make a difference in your setups. > > Whats the difference in driving between low riding and high riding ? > > low rider setups are less stable ? > > please help. > The lower you can place the center of gravity of a car to the > ground, the more stable the car will behave. A higher center > of gravity will allow the car to roll more. The greater roll > also takes longer to occur, thus making the car more unstable > during transitions. A lower center of gravity will result in > lower amounts of roll and, correspondingly, faster and more > stable directional transitions. In GPL, a lower ride height > will lower the center of gravity. A higher ride height will > raise the center of gravity. > Hope this helps. > -Chris- > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

J.H.Hovius.vcf < 1K Download

I notice the choppy frame rate when racing (or trying to race!) the AI cars with 1.2, just like you, it is very difficult to drive. In training 1.2 is generally better, but racing seems worse! Hmmmm........

Quoted text (41 lines)

> I agree, something definitely feels different, feels like I can push > the car harder and still keep it on the track, > what wheel are you using, I'm using MSFF, maybe theve tweaked the > controls slightly. > On another note about 1.1 / 1.2 dirrerences, on my low spec > system (p233mmx voodoo1 64meg ram) it also seems to run slower. > With 1.1 I was suffering with slo/mo, and no matter what graphics etc. I > turned on > or off I would always read 24 to 28 FPS, but in training it always ran > reasonably smooth, > and in single race it was still playable after the first bend or so. > Now with 1.2, no slo/mo but lots of slow down, > I get different/appropriate frame rates with different graphics settings, > but > even with everything turned off (about 30 to 34 FPS) the screen seems to > update > slowly, It sometimes looks more like 8 to 10 FPS. And forget racing it's > unplayable. > any ideas anyone. > -- > Mark > London UK > Yamaha TRX850 > > Hi Guys > > After installing 1.2.0.0 I noticed something diffrent. > > With 1.1.0.3 I could lap very consistant all day in the lotus. > > The lotus was a pleasure to drive !!!!! > > ( setup Ricardo Nunnini works briljant !!!!! thanks Ricardo !!!!) > > Now with 1.2.0.0 same car same setup I am all over the place. > > Spinning of all the time. > > So I think the physics have changed. > > What do you guys think ?????? > > Glenn

It is true that in modern F1, the lower the car the more downforce is produced. This is not, however, true for the GPL era cars. They weren't designed with any aerodynamic downforce considerations. Papy also didn't include any aerodynamics other than simple drag and drafting.

Quoted text (28 lines)

> I thought 'downforce' had something to do with it too? The > lower your RH the more downforce you experience (i.o.w. the > cars is more glued to the track thus allowing cornering at > higher speeds!) > > > > Were you a low-rider? The minimum rid-height is now > > > > 2.5 inches. That would make a difference in your setups. > > > Whats the difference in driving between low riding and > > > high riding ? > > > low rider setups are less stable ? > > > please help. > > The lower you can place the center of gravity of a car to the > > ground, the more stable the car will behave. A higher center > > of gravity will allow the car to roll more. The greater roll > > also takes longer to occur, thus making the car more unstable > > during transitions. A lower center of gravity will result in > > lower amounts of roll and, correspondingly, faster and more > > stable directional transitions. In GPL, a lower ride height > > will lower the center of gravity. A higher ride height will > > raise the center of gravity. > > Hope this helps. > > -Chris-

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

: It is true that in modern F1, the lower the car the more : downforce is produced. This is not, however, true for : the GPL era cars. Yes it is. Not sure how significant the effect is (presumably not very) but it's still quite definitely true. : They weren't designed with any aerodynamic : downforce considerations. Your point being? I'm sure the cars were designed with rudimentary aero considerations (smooth is better than "lumpy") - but designing in ignorance of the physics does not remove the actual physics. A modern road car isn't designed to produce downforce but it still does (well, OK - actually it produces a slight amount of lift - call it negative downforce if you like). : Papy also didn't include any : aerodynamics other than simple drag and drafting. That's a bit of an oversight surely? I'd have thought at least some kind of lift/downforce effect as appropriate would be VITAL. You only have to look at BTCC racing to realise that the smallest aero effect can cause huge handling alteration. The touring cars run tiny rear wings (wings dignifies them really) but if one loses that wing they are uncompetetive. If a 5cm wide (approx) strip of metal has a significant aero effect then the damn great ugly hunks of metal poking out of the back of the '67 race cars certainly did SOMETHING to the aerodynamics _regardless of whether the designers knew that this was happening_. Aside - it always puzzles me the order in which things were invented in car racing - tuned length exhausts for performance were invented in... well certainly by the 30s - don't know when they were actually come up with - but it wasn't until the 60s that slicks and wings were thought of. To me slicks and wings seem "obvious" - tuned length exhaust pipes on the other hand.... -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

I haven't noticed any difference in car physics or frame rates between 1.1 and 1.2 (US version from The Pits). My frame rate is still 36.9, and my set-ups all seem to handle the same as with 1.1, on-line and off. We have found that someone running the German 1.2 cannot join a race hosted with the US 1.2 - Incompatible Server message. Maybe there is some difference between the two. 1.2 seems awesome on-line, even with relatively poor connections, with 4 or 5 racers. Solid cars, very little warping. We did have a strange race with 13 drivers, but I'm hoping it was something else. Celeron 300A at 450MHz Voodoo 3 3000 128M RAM Sound Blaster Live! Value Kevin Caldwell Calgary, Canada

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I notice the choppy frame rate when racing (or trying to race!) the AI cars > with 1.2, just like you, it is very difficult to drive. In training 1.2 is > generally better, but racing seems worse! Hmmmm........ > > I agree, something definitely feels different, feels like I can push > > the car harder and still keep it on the track,

> : It is true that in modern F1, the lower the car the more > : downforce is produced. This is not, however, true for > : the GPL era cars. > Yes it is. Not sure how significant the effect is > (presumably not very) but it's still quite definitely true. OK. I'll agree that there is some kind of interaction between the underside of the car and the road surface that varies with ride height no matter what the shape of the car. However, this interaction wasn't designed into or planned for with the F1 cars of 1967. They simply weren't designed to produce downforce by the channeling and funneling of air underneath the cars. The ground effect wasn't fully understood (maybe not even thought of yet?) during the 1967 F1 season. My point being that the designers of 1967 F1 cars probably didn't design for downforce. Or at least they designed their cars so as not to take off like an aeroplane at 150 mph. :) Sure, the fundamental aerodynamic knowledge was there and understood in 1967, but it hadn't been applied to motor racing in the form of designed in downforce just yet. I'd be willing to bet all they designed their F1 cars for, aerodynamically, was to be very not-lumpy. Not being employed by Papy, I can't tell you what they designed in and what they didn't design into the GPL model with respect to aerodynamics. Accurately designed, real-time simulation of aero flow over the cars, however, would take an ENORMOUS chunck of the CPU's power. Obviously drag is modeled. Anyone who has driven the GPL Brabham at Monza or Spa and drafted up to 199 mph behind a Lotus or Eagle can attest to that. Further than that though...? Probably not anything. Since the cars weren't intended in 1967 to be anything other than aerodynamically neutral, why waste the CPU power modeling the aero flow? OTH, I do remember reading back when we all thought N3 would use the GPL physics model that Papy had added aero flow simulations into the model. Part of what I read said that the NASCAR model had real enough simulated flow that the car would take off like the old non-roof-flap cars if you spun it backwards at a high enough speed. I'm sure it adds a whole lot to the CPU load, though. I'm hoping that the model gets used for N4 when the P-4-1000 is available. :) -Chris- Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Maybe you're right and for some reason another setup (default?) is used under certain circumstances. I remember, that I've answered to your post, that I can't notice any difference with 1.2. In the meanwhile I went back to 1.1, but reading this thread I tried out 1.2 once again (cracked US version from the Fastlane). I'm absolutely sure, that there is NO difference in car handling between 1.1 and 1.2 on my system. I drove the Glen in 1.1 with the Lotus and immediately after that in 1.2 with the same setup. Same feel, same laptimes. And I noticed a difference between 1.0 and 1.1, even though I'd played GPL for only about 2 weeks at that time. So I think there must be a setup problem with all the guys, who swear, that there is a difference. Strange, that I don't have it... Peter Vienna, Austria

Quoted text (41 lines)

> > They feel more stable allright...theyre like driving a snowplow. I had > > really good setups in 1.0 for the Eagle which i modified slightly for > > 1.1.0.3 and i was still fast. Now my setup plows so bad in corners i > > cant drive it. Ive gone back to 1.0 for now but still using the 2.5 > > inch ride height. Anyone else notice the tremendous understeer? > I sure did but at the time no one else seemed to suffer from the same > problem. This is what I wrote on 29th of September after trying out the > German 1.2.0.0 patch: > <OLD STUFF> > After one lap at the Ring I didn't know what to think. The car seemed to > understeer like a pig with my usual setup which normally provides a > manageable oversteer, making the car delightfully lively around the > twisty circuit. > I've been away from GPL for a few weeks, so first thing that came into my > mind was: "Jesus, now I've really lost the touch." But as it felt more > like an Exxon tanker than a '67 GP car, I had to try the 1.1.0.3 to be > sure - and wham, the Ferrari was back to its normal self. > </OLD STUFF> > But a little bit later the problem just disappeared and instead of the > horrible understeer my setups began to feel exactly the same as in > 1.1.0.3. This happened just when I was about to give the 1.2.0.0 one > final go and fiddle around with setups as I had begun to suspect that > SOMEHOW, DESPITE of the CORRECT SETUP NAME and NUMBERS in the car setup > screen I was actually using a different setup (I've experimented with > several different ones and still have those around in my setups folder). > Just for the hell of it, try saving your usual setup with some other name > and then use that. Try out different setups, and see how they feel. I > haven't got a clue of what could cause this anomaly but it must be real > since several people have already experienced it. Pure X-files material. > --- > Antti Markus Peteri > 15 miles. your dim light shines from so far away > - Soul Asylum, Promises Broken

<snip> Same with me about physics, no difference. But I get about 2 fps less than in 1.1, when I don't reach 36 (race start), and it gets a little choppier, but that's better than slo-mo, IMO Peter Vienna, Austria

I haven't noticed any differences, using a LWFF. Maybe there's a setup problem, read Antti Markus Peteri's post and my answer. I get about 2 fps less than in 1.1, when I don't get 36 at a race start (PIII 450, V3 3000) and it is a bit choppier. I guess, that in order to keep real time, frames must be repeated, when you can't get 36 fps. This repeating of frames causes the 'choppiness'. Maybe the bug in 1.1 was, that the repeating of frames wasn't done, so you got a smoother picture, but also slo-mo. Did you ever compare to 1.0? I haven't done that yet, maybe tomorrow... Peter Vienna, Austria