Just had a massive laugh at this topic AC understeer

[Deleted member 963434]

Wanted to post but its closed now.

Massive understeer

Hi all, I'm new to ac, is it normal for cars to understeer catastrophically whe. You turn the wheel no more than 45-90 degrees

www.racedepartment.com

and guy said " Yes, the vast majority of cars are designed to understeer when you turn the wheel too much for the speed "
again but short " cars are DESIGNED to UNDERSTEER " whaaat xD
another one " In any racing, real or sim you should turn the wheel the absolute minimum amount "
well xD cars are not designed to understeer but turn fast and easily
also, when you drive fast you not turn so precise and carefully, but fast and hard
I know, i drive different cars daily, i work in car rental and i drive newest cars from 2018 to 2020 from seat ibiza to volvo xc60 or bmw 520d 2018 and i tell you for sure. cars are designed to turn, and when you drive fast, yo not scared to steer too much and be precise but you steer hard and fast, as Nicky Thiim (GTE champion) said bout iracing "yo want be good in iracing you must drive like a girl"
I think same for AC you must drive like a girl , so precise, so finese, so slow mo.
i post this cause i reinstalled AC for like 10 time today (same for PC2, i reinstall them alternately, once im outraged in AC understeer i uninstall it and install PC2, once im outraged in PC2 ffb settings i unistall it and install AC, that happen like 2 month cycle)
and today i just installed AC and think uninstall it again to get back to PC2 tomorrow.
so fo!!!!ken outraged how cars drive there, and this sense of speed boi i tell yo i drive really fast in real life ( i crashed two cars in job) but never go into 90 degree turn at like 50 kph and just get off road lol, and i can tell im goin 50 kph only by looking at speedo and i feel like im goin like 10-20 kph. I tel yo even more in real life i test cars near my home by checking how fast a car can get into 90 degree corner, and im easily make 90 degree corner by 80 kph righ now even with cars as toyota corolla, seat ibiza or my own old bmw e36 i can make 90 degree corner easily at 70 kph, in ac i barely can at 50 kph its so funny
so angry at this game.
i tell you theres no good sim right now for road cars, ACC is just best for gt3 but pc2 would be for road cars if they improve ffb, cars drive like in real life there but yo doin everything by learned habits cause ffb is so poor there
and i didnt even touched rfactor 2 cause scared its AC fanboys making it sound so good and theres even more understeer than AC.. its crap as f... forza horizon is much more comparable to real life than AC

 

[mclarenf1papa]

claiming it's based on my opinion is wrong, cause it's from an actual source. I feel like I have to remind everybody that I'm using external source to backup the evidence.


Yeah you can, cause the car will not have a triangle shape, but amateur understeer like pro. When the car refuse to corner, it lose traction, thus result less G. It will result the amateur graph example.

The vibe of science

You have to remind everyone because you’re not using sources correctly. The problem is you’re just using whatever resources in whatever ways you want. Your interpretation of the D61 image is still wrong, and the other one falls victim to the same problem. You just don’t know what you’re talking about or what you’re looking at. You referenced dampers in a G-G plot a page or two back in a context that made absolutely no sense, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If you don’t understand the data you’re looking at, it’s not fair to use it to substantiate your point. It’s not scientific. The scientific approach is looking at D61, which says it should be a circle when driven by a pro, and your other (not very credible) source, which says it should be a triangle, and realizing that either there’s more going on here, or (at least) one of your sources is wrong. Science isn’t using resources showing two different theories to try to “prove” the same baseless point. The tires in AC don’t work how you’re saying (that’s literally not even an argument to be had, they just don’t, if you disagree you are factually incorrect), and none of the actual scientific evidence in this thread says they do.

I don't use theory. it's all data related with common sense as per read. Even reputable real car website advertise AC being an understeer simulator which support OP experience with this game.

" both virtual and real car, it was way easier to handle the real car and enter with more speed into high-speed corners, whereas the virtual car has had more tendencies to understeer. The braking performance in real car wasn’t as effective as it is in virtual car though. "

GAME vs REALITY: Testing the Toyota GT86 on Slovakiaring

Article about comparing the virtual and real car, on the same track, at the limit.

drivetribe.com

If you use the traction circle as per read provide by the professional simracer in this thread & the reference from this reputable car enthusiast website, it totally make sense. You get a tip of g sticking out & he purposely draw his circle smaller to compensate to science.

Again, every word of what you say is theory. Even the resources you use are just stating theory. All actual data in this thread shows the opposite of what you’re saying.

There’s a difference between the accuracy of a car model within the sim and the accuracy of the sim itself, again clearly a concept that you cannot grasp.

And I’m not a professional simracer, but I am a professional simulation engineer and mechanical engineer by trade. What are your qualifications?

I just find your entire argument funny because it is indeed factually incorrect at the most fundamental level, and no matter how much evidence is thrown at you to show that, you still decide your opinion is more valid than actual fact. Not data intepretation, but fact. AC’s tires use string theory, Stereo and I helped add code with Stefano specifically to modify that, so we know how it works. Besides Stefano, you don’t have two more reputable sources on this particular thing in AC.

 

[Mr Deap]

You referenced dampers in a G-G plot a page or two back in a context that made absolutely no sense, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg

That tip sticking out in the traction circle is the reason behind it, but yeah it's true in the real world & it should show a triangle. It almost feel like pitch is equal to weight in the virtual world, but thanks to pointing it out your work.

Stereo and I helped add code with Stefano specifically to modify that, so we know how it works.

And I’m not a professional simracer, but I am a professional simulation engineer and mechanical engineer by trade. What are your qualifications?

None & you don't need a degree to see it's wrong. With all the available resource available, everyone is bound to understeer in AC.

 

[Johnr777]

None & you don't need a degree to see it's wrong. With all the available resource available, everyone is bound to understeer in AC.

So the qualifications of a typical troll then...

 

[Mr Deap]

So the qualifications of a typical troll then...

I'm not a troll, I'm getting trolled along with everyone who feel understeer in AC.

 

[Johnr777]

I'm not a troll, I'm getting trolled along with everyone who feel understeer in AC.

Then the door is open

 

[mclarenf1papa]

That tip sticking out in the traction circle is the reason behind it, but yeah it's true in the real world & it should show a triangle. It almost feel like pitch is equal to weight in the virtual world, but thanks to pointing it out your work.


None & you don't need a degree to see it's wrong. With all the available resource available, everyone is bound to understeer in AC.

The tip “sticking out” has nothing to do with dampers.

And if you think it should show a triangle, then you’re saying everything about string theory is wrong and thus contradicting yourself quite heavily. If you’re going to have these baseless arguments, you may as well keep them consistent. Don’t you think it’s odd that people who are qualified are disagreeing with you, doesn’t that raise any alarm bells?

 

[Mr Deap]

The tip “sticking out” has nothing to do with dampers.

And if you think it should show a triangle, then you’re saying everything about string theory is wrong and thus contradicting yourself quite heavily. If you’re going to have these baseless arguments, you may as well keep them consistent. Don’t you think it’s odd that people who are qualified are disagreeing with you, doesn’t that raise any alarm bells?

Yeah, a person can draw a small circle & left a tip sticking out. Not sure I can call that qualified or honest, based on what's available as resource easy to reach.

The problem is you’re just using whatever resources in whatever ways you want.

You mean resource easy to reach. I'm not paid to look deeper.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

Yeah, a person can draw a small circle & left a tip sticking out. Not sure I can call that qualified or honest, based on what's available as resource easy to reach.

You mean resource easy to reach. I'm not paid to look deeper.

I explained exactly why the circle is that size. I can do it for a car without downforce so it's easier to understand.

It's not about looking deeper, it's about looking at what's already there correctly, and you aren't. You've made incorrect points and contradicted yourself for the past however many pages (and years, really) because you don't understand the data/information you're using to try to justify your argument (which, as has been said, is a factually baseless one).

 

[Mr Deap]

I explained exactly why the circle is that size. I can do it for a car without downforce so it's easier to understand.

It's not about looking deeper, it's about looking at what's already there correctly, and you aren't. You've made incorrect points and contradicted yourself for the past however many pages (and years, really) because you don't understand the data/information you're using to try to justify your argument (which, as has been said, is a factually baseless one).

What seems correct to you will show the opposite on the first 100 google search result.

There's a blog post that claims that the car has more cornering force than braking(higher lateral "X" over longitudinal "Y").

There's another site which has data from a motorbike & has bout the same G for both X & Y.

In your pic the thing you're driving is alien based on everything I find on the web, unless it's from amateur data, but the person ain't trail braking.

 

[KittX]

- There's a scientific data
- Look, there's a blog post!

sadly this is the reality of post-truth world we're living in.

 

[Mr Deap]

sadly this is the reality of post-truth world we're living in.

He should go & complain to google to replace all the wrong picture in the first 100 search result.

 

[Stereo]

The issue here is the pictures aren't right or wrong, they're just being drawn to demonstrate principles. They're not data. They're a simplified visualization to only include the features the author means to point out. Whereas actual data has random noise in it, or is heavily biased towards right turns (see: most race courses), or is just plain malfunctioning sensors (not all that uncommon)

 

[KittX]

Mr Deap's posts sincerely look like some neural network spamming bot to be honest.
It's hard to believe this isnt the case.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

What seems correct to you will show the opposite on the first 100 google search result.

There's a blog post that claims that the car has more cornering force than braking(higher lateral "X" over longitudinal "Y").

There's another site which has data from a motorbike & has bout the same G for both X & Y.

In your pic the thing you're driving is alien based on everything I find on the web, unless it's from amateur data, but the person ain't trail braking.

Well, tires have lower load sensitivity (more grip) in the longitudinal direction, so that's very, very unlikely to be the case (but from such a credible source, a blog post, how can one argue ). The person driving in all of the data I've shown is trail braking quite a decent amount.

Above is a pole lap in the IMSA Prototype category. About as professional as it gets. Quite hilariously similar to how the other data I've shown (simulator with me driving) looks. Frankly, it's amazing that you're still in denial about this.

edit: And the below plot shows just how much the driver was trail braking in this data set.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

And this is for the other data set I've shown (the one where Deap says there's no trail braking), where there's quite a significant amount of trail braking.

 

[Mascot]

View attachment 415514

She really ought to go and get that looked at.

 

[RobertR1]

What started off as a meme now has a lot of great info it in so thanks to those individuals with the background, understanding and patience to share.

I'm still learning my way through Motec and never really paid attention to the CG plot graph before this discussion became valuable. This is my data using official content from a Mclaren 650s GT3 at Mugello on Mediums. The 6 lap plot is lap ranging between 1.47.1xx to 1.47.2xx

I believe @Stereo mentioned that tracks with bias on right or left side turns will plot accordingly which makes sense.

The question I have is around the empty space you see right at the bottom right. What does that indicate? Some ideas on how to translate this type of plot data into driver or setup improvements would benefit everyone, perhaps @mclarenf1papa ?

I think a lot of people, certainly me, are following the conversation in the abstract but unable to relate to something functional.

 

[Deleted member 963434]

I don't use theory. it's all data related with common sense as per read. Even reputable real car website advertise AC being an understeer simulator which support OP experience with this game.

" both virtual and real car, it was way easier to handle the real car and enter with more speed into high-speed corners, whereas the virtual car has had more tendencies to understeer. The braking performance in real car wasn’t as effective as it is in virtual car though. "

GAME vs REALITY: Testing the Toyota GT86 on Slovakiaring

Article about comparing the virtual and real car, on the same track, at the limit.

drivetribe.com

If you use the traction circle as per read provide by the professional simracer in this thread & the reference from this reputable car enthusiast website, it totally make sense. You get a tip of g sticking out & he purposely draw his circle smaller to compensate to science.

i saw this footage comparing gt86 in real life and ac and i think i even post about it earlier.
yo see in real life he turns wheel like 5 cm to right and in ac yo see no turning maybe 1 cm, also one of first turns he take turn in real life at 170 kph and i think he could take it even faster but he just scared cause played ac too much, and in ac he take same turn at speed below 150 kph, almost every turn he takes yo can see he takes it 20 kph faster in real life than in game and he not even close to limit i can tell for sure. same thing with drifting my 150 hp bmw e36 drifts at lower speeds like crazy at 2nd gear and in ac bmw m3 e30 240 hp cant even slide at low speed and yo cant even make burnout while standing. ac early version i remember has so slippery physics like iceRacing today but they fixed it, but now cars so glued to road so they more understeers that oversteer, and at lower speeds too glued to road cant even make drift at 2nd gear wit 240 hp car,

 

[Deleted member 963434]

come on get into ac choose bmw m3 e30 240 hp choose vintage 90s tyres and try to make burnout, yo cant, in real life yo can make burnout wit bmw e36 1.6i 102 hp
why yo cant make burnout wit 240 hp car tell me?

 

[mclarenf1papa]

come on get into ac choose bmw m3 e30 240 hp choose vintage 90s tyres and try to make burnout, yo cant, in real life yo can make burnout wit bmw e36 1.6i 102 hp
why yo cant make burnout wit 240 hp car tell me?

That's just a low speed physics thing + Kunos-made tires being inaccurate. The sim itself is a good one; you can't conflate car model accuracy with the accuracy of the sim engine.

What started off as a meme now has a lot of great info it in so thanks to those individuals with the background, understanding and patience to share.

I'm still learning my way through Motec and never really paid attention to the CG plot graph before this discussion became valuable. This is my data using official content from a Mclaren 650s GT3 at Mugello on Mediums. The 6 lap plot is lap ranging between 1.47.1xx to 1.47.2xx

View attachment 415660

I believe @Stereo mentioned that tracks with bias on right or left side turns will plot accordingly which makes sense.

The question I have is around the empty space you see right at the bottom right. What does that indicate? Some ideas on how to translate this type of plot data into driver or setup improvements would benefit everyone, perhaps @mclarenf1papa ?

I think a lot of people, certainly me, are following the conversation in the abstract but unable to relate to something functional.

I'm more concerned with the empty space at the bottom - this plot looks like it might be gated with some channel? Right click, properties, and there's an enable gating checkbox. If that's checked, uncheck it and you should hopefully see the "braking line" fill most of the gap that's there. If not, I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the hole. It could be that your straight line braking is below the capacity of the car, but I don't see enough data points in the braking region (compare it to the point density of the pure cornering and pure acceleration regions) to think that something weird isn't going on with the plot itself.

To answer your other question, these plots are only so useful. With aero cars it becomes more complicated, as the size of the "ideal" ellipse changes with speed and thus it's difficult to get much out of the plot. I personally don't use them much as they're too dependent on driving style and there are other metrics that I prefer to look at for that (and I usually work on cars with a lot of aero, so again, complicated). If you have a way to calculate tire loads in a channel, know approximate aero coefficients, and have a model for tire load sensitivity, you can make a plot that gives a better idea of actual tire performance usage that isn't skewed by aerodynamic forces. It's just a pain, so I don't do that either.