Porsche 911 Singer

Cars Porsche 911 Singer 1.1

Login or Register an account to download this content
That's not the correct approach.

There's no physics engine in the world that you just input sheet data and it produces most realistic results it could. Even if there was, which there isn't, the data required isn't detailed enough for 99.999% cars. Unless the modder in question is an F1 engineer who runs thousands of laps with the car and has access to all the data.

Secondly, whatever goes under the hood is completely irrelevant in a driving sim. What matters is that the car should act as close as possible to real life version.
Interesting. Could I see your portfolio? I can't see any posted mods by you, but maybe you've completed some professional work.
 
Interesting. Could I see your portfolio? I can't see any posted mods by you, but maybe you've completed some professional work.
Well because I have not shared a mod, yet. And that is irrelevant. The point is, car should handle like an AWD Porsche and it doesn't. TBH rest of the cars don't handle like Porsche either. 3D quality is just so amazing, it just makes people "overlook" the physics inaccuracies.

In the video, everytime there's lift off, there is oversteer. Even on the front tyre view, there is a lot of corrections going on mid corner which indicates oversteer. And when he steps on the throttle, as long as it is not crazy amounts of torque, the car "settles" on the road.

 
Well because I have not shared a mod, yet. And that is irrelevant. The point is, car should handle like an AWD Porsche and it doesn't. TBH rest of the cars don't handle like Porsche either. 3D quality is just so amazing, it just makes people "overlook" the physics inaccuracies.

In the video, everytime there's lift off, there is oversteer. Even on the front tyre view, there is a lot of corrections going on mid corner which indicates oversteer. And when he steps on the throttle, as long as it is not crazy amounts of torque, the car "settles" on the road.

So you don't actually know if what you said is even true, nice.

Anyway, like I said, it's on vanilla physics. I don't know if I have the energy or time to update this car anymore. You're free to update the car and roll out the update with Ben if you feel like it.
 
So you don't actually know if what you said is even true, nice.

Anyway, like I said, it's on vanilla physics. I don't know if I have the energy or time to update this car anymore. You're free to update the car and roll out the update with Ben if you feel like it.

Trust me I know that it is true, and you really should cut that condescending talk. What I said is 2+2 equals 4. If you look at the data of some Kunos cars, even they are off a bit sometimes. And that is to bring the handling character of the real car.

Maybe if you can't get such an amazing mod to a nice quality, basically wasting it with your wrong "physics", don't take up the work. Because I have driven loads of Porsche mods in AC that handled just like a Porsche.
 
Trust me I know that it is true, and you really should cut that condescending talk. What I said is 2+2 equals 4. If you look at the data of some Kunos cars, even they are off a bit sometimes. And that is to bring the handling character of the real car.

Maybe if you can't get such an amazing mod to a nice quality, basically wasting it with your wrong "physics", don't take up the work. Because I have driven loads of Porsche mods in AC that handled just like a Porsche.
KS cars are off because the dev cycle is incredibly short and nobody has time to do research in that time. Not because you need to falsify calculations in a program to somehow get correct ones. Please stop talking about things you don't know anything about.

I've already pulled all of my independent work from RD due to their low quality and poor reception, but I think it would be unfair to force mod authors to pull their work just because mine is included in it.

You or anyone else is completely free to provide replacement physics for the car or any car I've made and if the author agrees merge it to the original. Go and put in corrected sprung inertia, more accurate tires with CSP functions, accurate front geometry using the strut fix, a proper trailing arm using EX=2 and calculate installation stiffnesses for the stabilizers like I'd have to do and then merge your better car to the original and we will all be happy. Then I can wash my hands of the Singer as well.
 
KS cars are off because the dev cycle is incredibly short and nobody has time to do research in that time. Not because you need to falsify calculations in a program to somehow get correct ones. Please stop talking about things you don't know anything about.

I've already pulled all of my independent work from RD due to their low quality and poor reception, but I think it would be unfair to force mod authors to pull their work just because mine is included in it.

You or anyone else is completely free to provide replacement physics for the car or any car I've made and if the author agrees merge it to the original. Go and put in corrected sprung inertia, more accurate tires with CSP functions, accurate front geometry using the strut fix, a proper trailing arm using EX=2 and calculate installation stiffnesses for the stabilizers like I'd have to do and then merge your better car to the original and we will all be happy. Then I can wash my hands of the Singer as well.
So you actually think that Kunos devs, who have official contracts with the manufacturers, need to do research on the internet like you and didn't have time for it? That's your theory? They literally have the manufacturer phone and email. They will already get sent all the data available before they even ask for it. And more than you could ever find digging on the web. You are more clueless than I had even thought.
 
So you actually think that Kunos devs, who have official contracts with the manufacturers, need to do research on the internet like you and didn't have time for it? That's your theory? They literally have the manufacturer phone and email. They will already get sent all the data available before they even ask for it. And more than you could ever find digging on the web. You are more clueless than I had even thought.
Are you seriously so naive that you unironically believe that just because someone is making a car in a videogame they automatically get all the data from the manufacturer? Holy **** the absolute state.

You might get some data if you're lucky, worst case scenario you get nothing at all. I am sure that manufacturers are really eager to give out all of their data to be included in something that can be fairly easily ripped.
 
Last edited:
Are you seriously so naive that you unironically believe that just because someone is making a car in a videogame they automatically get all the data from the manufacturer? Holy **** the absolute state.

You might get some data if you're lucky, worst case scenario you get nothing at all. I am sure that manufacturers are really eager to give out all of their data to be included in something that can be fairly easily ripped.

They do get data from the manufacturer. Back in the day Stefano and Aris would do many livestreams and talk about stuff. Clearly you weren't around back then.

And your other theory that "I am sure that manufacturers are really eager to give out all of their data to be included in something that can be fairly easily ripped." is completely pointless. For 2 reasons.

1st) Those cars are already on the market. Like, real versions are there. A serious rival manufacturer could get it and analyze it.

2nd) Do you even catch what we are talking about here? We are talking about the data already being on the internet. If that stuff is already available on the internet, your theory of "Manufacturers wouldn't wanna give it out" doesn't even remotely make sense.
 
So you actually think that Kunos devs, who have official contracts with the manufacturers, need to do research on the internet like you and didn't have time for it? That's your theory? They literally have the manufacturer phone and email. They will already get sent all the data available before they even ask for it. And more than you could ever find digging on the web. You are more clueless than I had even thought.
Huh, really. Interesting. By the way, could you please post your professional portfolio? I take it you've done work with OEMs before by how you're speaking. Surely you're not just making wild assumptions.

I guess it's just some mixup then that my dampers from the 2015 mod car got put in the R34 V-spec, why didn't they just ask Nissan for them? It's also a bit weird that the suspension geometry, which is not even correct by the way, comes from a "Hillclimb R32" which doesn't even share subframes or control arms with the R34. Why didn't Aris just phone or email Nissan for the geometry CAD or drawings?

You know, it really is weird. The laserscan I got for a JZA80 doesn't line up anywhere to the KS car either; even the alignment in the front is off almost a whole ten degrees on the SAI. I guess they must've measured from the wrong points.

I also find it quite shocking that Mazda and Toyota shared so much data with eachother; did you know that some of the subframe points in the FD3S and JZA80 are identical?! It doesn't seem to be like that in the scan, subframe diagrams and schematics I have; but what do I know. I'm pretty clueless after all.

Oh, reminds me of the time I found the damper data that KS used in their RX-7. I think it was an USDM Zenki that had crashed into a ditch and someone dynod the blown dampers on forums. Kind of weird that my Bilstein damper graph that I got for the later models doesn't line up at all with that, but I guess Kunos phoned Mazda to make sure what's in the Spirit R.

Hmm, maybe it's a problem with just JDM cars. I suppose the kinematics and compliance data I have for a modern BMW not lining up one bit with the Kunos E92 is just some kind of weird mixup again.

Did you know the CoG height of the E92 is actually almost 10cm lower than what comes out from scientific testing of modern 3-series?! A bit of a coincidence, but I found a forum post which claims almost that exact same figure that Kunos' sprung CG height is at. I guess that carbon fiber roof in the E92 really does miracles.
 
>A serious rival manufacturer could get it and analyze it.

Sure. They could. But that requires obtaining a real car and reverse engineering it, which in case of some of the more exotic manufacturers would be stupidly expensive as opposed to simply ripping the files. So even if they /could/ do it, giving Aris all the data would make it infinitely easier to do so.

>We are talking about the data already being on the internet.

Sure is buddy. Go and find me exact geometry points, camber/toe curves and detailed spring/bumpstop/damper rates for anything that doesn't have massive aftermarket like S-chassis.
I will be looking forward to your reply containing all of the above.
 
Last edited:
>A serious rival manufacturer could get it and analyze it.

Sure. They could. But that requires obtaining a real car and reverse engineering it, which in case of some of the more exotic manufacturers would be stupidly expensive as opposited to simply ripping the files. So even if they /could/ do it, giving Aris all the data would make it infinitely easier to do so.

>We are talking about the data already being on the internet.

Sure is buddy. Go and find me exact geometry points, camber/toe curves and detailed spring/bumpstop/damper rates for anything that doesn't have massive aftermarket like S-chassis.
I will be looking forward to your reply containing all of the above.
I am just going to ignore you. I don't know if you were self projecting, but you're indeed naive and still couldn't catch the drift. Kyuubey found all the info he has, by "researching" like he said, on the internet. So that data IS available on the internet.

Sigh, welcome to my ignore list.
 
Trust me I know that it is true, and you really should cut that condescending talk. What I said is 2+2 equals 4. If you look at the data of some Kunos cars, even they are off a bit sometimes. And that is to bring the handling character of the real car.

Maybe if you can't get such an amazing mod to a nice quality, basically wasting it with your wrong "physics", don't take up the work. Because I have driven loads of Porsche mods in AC that handled just like a Porsche.
so you've driven a lot of Porsches IRL too? or just judging by videos?
 
They do get data from the manufacturer. Back in the day Stefano and Aris would do many livestreams and talk about stuff. Clearly you weren't around back then.

And your other theory that "I am sure that manufacturers are really eager to give out all of their data to be included in something that can be fairly easily ripped." is completely pointless. For 2 reasons.

1st) Those cars are already on the market. Like, real versions are there. A serious rival manufacturer could get it and analyze it.

2nd) Do you even catch what we are talking about here? We are talking about the data already being on the internet. If that stuff is already available on the internet, your theory of "Manufacturers wouldn't wanna give it out" doesn't even remotely make sense.
I've seen all Kunos streams and he never showed or talked about car data given from manufacturers. There were mostly coding sessions and some car testing but nothing related to physics and its work behind the cars
 
I've seen all Kunos streams and he never showed or talked about car data given from manufacturers. There were mostly coding sessions and some car testing but nothing related to physics and its work behind the cars
They didn't show manufacturers stuff, yet they did say many times how they get their hands on manufacturer data. And I even specifically remember where Aris was talking about getting the, probably Zonda or Huayra, not sure, to feel right that they had to go back and forth with the manufacturer to make the car act correctly.

And yes I have driven an old Porsche Carrera few times on track day, thought dont remember which exact model it was.
 
Lafrente, just to be clear, please stop arguing. You're posting a lot of misinformation and probably confusing some people. You've been doing it for a long time. I have no idea how you're not banned yet. Aren't you the same guy who was saying the same **** about the JZA80 a few years ago?

Do you not see the madness in speaking with such conviction about things that you are operating on pure assumptions about? You have no work experience in the simulation industry, no experience making physics mods, I don't think you have spoken to developers in private. Where are your ideas coming from? It is true KS gets some data and sometimes even laserscanned/CAD suspension geometries (Front geo for the Nismo GT-R is not so bad, but there are mess ups too, like the signage is wrong on the Z point of the outboard UCA in the rear suspension of the Praga R1 and similar messups in the Lotus Elise SC geometry) but they don't get nearly as much as you think they do. Nobody does. Most of their cars are internet researched, especially the Japanese classic cars.

Please, by all means, do some research. That's how we found out that KS cars are not as accurate as people think. I'll give you an easy one.

Unpack the KS RX-7 and look at the spring rates and damper rates. I'll give you some material to do calculations.

Front MR for FD3S at design height from kinematics software = 0.62821962558
Front Spring K for FD3S from Mazda = 47100 N/m

Rear MR for FD3S at design height from kinematics software = 0.77321580453
Rear Spring K for FD3S from Mazda = 35200 N/m

Calculate those and check what rates come out.

I'll also post a graph showing the damper dyno from Mazda. The black line is the Bilstein Kouki damper data. It also shows the spring K in N/mm.

You can also calculate the damper rates from this. Don't forget to apply the motion ratio, they're at the shaft.

Damper Bilstein vs Tuned.jpg


I will also post the motion ratio graphs if you wish to use another point. Bear in mind they are inverse, so do the conversion.

SHARK FD3S Front MR Curve.PNG


SHARK FD3S Rear MR Curve.PNG
 
Huh, really. Interesting. By the way, could you please post your professional portfolio? I take it you've done work with OEMs before by how you're speaking. Surely you're not just making wild assumptions.
No, thanks for the interest though. I'd like to see your professional portfolio, since you seem to have contributed a lot to the community, however questionable the quality.
I guess it's just some mixup then that my dampers from the 2015 mod car got put in the R34 V-spec, why didn't they just ask Nissan for them? It's also a bit weird that the suspension geometry, which is not even correct by the way, comes from a "Hillclimb R32" which doesn't even share subframes or control arms with the R34. Why didn't Aris just phone or email Nissan for the geometry CAD or drawings?
Yes, Kunos devs didn't have time, they instead downloaded mods, analyzed them, and "ripped" your content.
You know, it really is weird. The laserscan I got for a JZA80 doesn't line up anywhere to the KS car either; even the alignment in the front is off almost a whole ten degrees on the SAI. I guess they must've measured from the wrong points.
Or the laserscan data you found floating on the internet is wrong.
I also find it quite shocking that Mazda and Toyota shared so much data with eachother; did you know that some of the subframe points in the FD3S and JZA80 are identical?! It doesn't seem to be like that in the scan, subframe diagrams and schematics I have; but what do I know. I'm pretty clueless after all.

Oh, reminds me of the time I found the damper data that KS used in their RX-7. I think it was an USDM Zenki that had crashed into a ditch and someone dynod the blown dampers on forums. Kind of weird that my Bilstein damper graph that I got for the later models doesn't line up at all with that, but I guess Kunos phoned Mazda to make sure what's in the Spirit R.

Hmm, maybe it's a problem with just JDM cars. I suppose the kinematics and compliance data I have for a modern BMW not lining up one bit with the Kunos E92 is just some kind of weird mixup again.

Did you know the CoG height of the E92 is actually almost 10cm lower than what comes out from scientific testing of modern 3-series?! A bit of a coincidence, but I found a forum post which claims almost that exact same figure that Kunos' sprung CG height is at. I guess that carbon fiber roof in the E92 really does miracles.

Which brings us to my original point. Whatever goes in the background, it all serves one thing: To make the car act as close as possible to the real version. They don't try to be accurate in numbers, they try to be accurate in handling. And Kunos cars all behave pretty good. In fact a car that is well made in AC, handles more realistically than any other sim ever. Being best in theory and numbers gets you an RF2.
 
I'm not a pro, I do it for a hobby. However you're the one who questioned my ability, hence I'm assuming you're an industry pro and annoyed at my stupidity and misinformation. To now all you've provided as proof is philosophical arguments, though. Maybe if you could post a sample of some pro work you've done with an OEM, I'd be inclined to believe your words over other professionals' and my own findings.

I don't understand the 2nd argument.

You are indeed right that the data is in a way wrong; they measured from the mounting surface and not the actual geometric center of the balljoints in some points, I assume due to it being significantly easier. I had to reference the subframe diagrams, some Toyota suspension curves and many images + do some calculations from estimation to find the actual joint position based on the original data.

It still doesn't explain why KS' SAI is almost ten degrees off from the reference value in the alignment specifications. I verified that it's not measured from SAI-line interception with the wheel vertical centerline to the tire CP like some very strange standards are, and it indeed seems to be from UBJ to LBJ, which the scan lines up with quite well.

You have no simulation development experience; why are you still talking about simulation development? Even if what you are saying is not necessarily flawed (apart from the point about rF2 being correct in theory and numbers LOL) you don't actually know any of it. You're just parroting some stuff due to arrogance; not speaking with confidence from experience.
 

Latest News

Online or Offline racing?

  • 100% online racing

    Votes: 76 7.1%
  • 75% online 25% offline

    Votes: 114 10.7%
  • 50% online 50% offline

    Votes: 155 14.5%
  • 25% online 75% offline

    Votes: 296 27.7%
  • 100% offline racing

    Votes: 424 39.7%
  • Something else, explain in comment

    Votes: 4 0.4%
Back
Top