Spinoff : Temporary car balancing discussion

[Scawen]

Here we can discuss the temporary car balancing. This balancing is supposed to just improve two of the racing classes, the "TBO" class and the "GTR" class. As we know, the TBO class has been totally dominated by the FXO turbo, leaving no chance at all in online racing for XRT and RB4 drivers. The GTR class was dominated by the FZR, making it the best choice in almost all circumstances.

The temporary global class balancing is supopsed to get them to a more average standard, so different cars will be slightly better on different tracks. The balancing will be made permanent when we release a physically imcompatible patch, though they will also be balanced by other means, like giving the FXO slightly narrower wheels like the road car it is supposed to be.

Currently we have :

FXO : 70 kg added mass and 3% intake restriction
XRT : 20 kg added mass
RB4 : -

FZR : 100 kg
XRR : 50 kg
FXR : -

The GTR class probably needs some adjusting - we did not test that in detail before W9's release. If you have suggestions for adjustments to these, and you feel that you have researched them enough, you are welcome to state them here. It is unlikely that we would want to balance any other classes, by the way. It's these two classes that needed urgent attention.

[Jonesy_]

From my limited experience with tbo class:

It seems to me that fxo is a tad slower than the xrt or rb4 almost on every track. But the extra weight on xrt has really made it uncompetive against rb4 on tracks where rb4 already was faster.
I tought that rb4 and xrt were pretty equal, on a single lap at least, around the most tracks, other having the edge on some tracks whilst the other having the edge on some other tracks, before the extra weight.

But I´m glad this is getting into the right direction at least :)

[D4RK1]

hm.. i think its a good idea to level the performance of the cars in the different classes. But as far as i tried, the FXR is now as fast as the FZR, now uses even less fuel and is still much more stable (4WD). So before, there was the tradeoff between speed and stability when choosing your car.

Now there is only one reason to keep driving FZR and that is less tirewear (for me at least). In races the guys driving FXR just push themselves alongside you and stay there, not having to worry about being thrown off the track. A collision, even a little one is more likely to throw the FZR out than the FXR.

I would propose to put a little less weight on the FZR so that its still faster but not so much to leave the FXR and XRR drivers far behind.

Since my technical abilities aren´t that good i can´t propose definitive changes but i just wanted to tell you about my problems. I am also not that good a driver that i can drive all three GTR-cars at the absolute limit so my comparison is somewhat flawed. I would leave the real testing to better drivers :P

[Blowtus]

We ran a league series with the xrt and rb4 recently - we selected tracks where the hotlaps were as close as possible. They were roughly equal for qualifying, but in the cut and thrust of racing over a course of laps the rb4 had a significant advantage. I think the rb4 should get the 20kg instead of the xrt...

edit: We typically run multiple 15 minute races for the league.

[hackerx]

Maybe it's me but I find it hard to do more than 2-3 laps with RB4 at full speed until tyres overheat too much. Perhaps I don't have good setups but RB4 only seems to be competetive in very short races.

[Motörhead V8]

i found the rb4 a little bit faster than the other tbo's now, the fxo is too slower IMO, the XRT seens to be fine, just need a little tweak to be equal to the rb4

on the GTR class its the same thing, AWD is the fastest, the FZR now seens to be the slowest car
the FXR seens to be the fastest on most circuits, the XRR is between the FZR and FXR

sorry for bad english

[W1ldPort75]

The way i see it is that alot of FZR drivers are going do switch to FXR . I personally love the new patch , but the weight is a mess . All of us that drive FZR´s are going to have alot of trouble against FXR´s in the future . :schwitz: I will still be driving the FZR in the future , but not with as much fun as i used to . I think we should leave the weight out or think of something else to add on future patches , but unfortunatelly i cant do nothing about it :shrug: . Scawen and CO. are doing a great job no dought about it , and i really apreciate how quick everythings going with all the patches but ...... the weight , the weight !

greetz

[geeman1]

I would propose to put a little less weight on the FZR so that its still faster but not so much to leave the FXR and XRR drivers far behind.That's a good idea.

[Jakg]

the FZR will be faster than the FXR because the FXR is AWD and has drive-train losses - it should be the easiest car to drive, and therefore the slowest (but not by much), in the same way i think the FXO will probably end up being slowest because it's FWD and therefore the easiest to drive (aparently, it may not oversteer so much but it's still got a limit!)

[Jimmy_Lemon]

i kinda made a post thingy about the XRT's weight here:

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=22849

not every one will agree with me, and its kind of hard to see what im saying.

but every ones entitiled to a oppionon tho right? :shrug:


but still tho. i love the other new things like the false start systems thats awsome :thumb:

[GruntOfAction]

Yeah the FZR has always been faster than the FXR and the XRR which means practicly everyone uses FZR.

But im sure whatever changes you make to the game will only improve it!


As long as you DO NOT add Nitrous lol.

[DanneDA]

I feel that the FZR has gained a bit to much weight. The handling is okay, no problems at all - it's just gotten slow. To be able to keep up with the fast FXR drivers you'll have to drive the wheels of the car. I'm not sure but I think it consumes more fuel per lap with the added weight.

The FZR should be slightly faster than the FXR so that in the end of a long race (after pitstops and such) neither car will have an advantage. As it is in W9 it feels like the FZR isn't fast enough to complete more pitstops than the FXR and still finish close together.


I think about 70-80 kg extra for FZR would be better instead of the 100 kg used now.

[duke_toaster]

Since my technical abilities aren´t that good i can´t propose definitive changes but i just wanted to tell you about my problems. I am also not that good a driver that i can drive all three GTR-cars at the absolute limit so my comparison is somewhat flawed. I would leave the real testing to better drivers :P

I would also not give an absolute comparison (when they said about modifying the Bus Stop chicane at Monza, they were planning on having me in a tank instead :D ) . IMO for the GTR's we should penalise the FZR the current 100kg, bear in mind that whilst it has inferior fuel economy, it doesn't have turbo lag coming out of corners.

On the drivetrain efficiency, is the figures in LFS wheel horsepower or measured at the flywheel? If the latter, what are the wheel figures?

One point which I don't think anyone else has mentioned about the lead ballast is that it can be positioned. Mounting it right at the front or at the back would help solve handling issues, maybe on some cars (I'm thinking FZR) there should be a combination of intake restrictor and ballast.

Bear in mind - especially for the TBO's each track is different. I suggest that the ballast amounts are different for rallycross tracks (which wil naturally give the RB4 a massive advantage due to its four wheel drive system) and paved circuits.

Just a few ideas, we need to test this online more (with decent drivers, not cockup artists on wheels like me). I suggest that until later this week the ballasts don't change, but then have a further look and then take ballast out of the XRT/ballast in to the RB4/restrictor plates in the FZR.

[Scawen]

The way i see it is that alot of FZR drivers are going do switch to FXR . I personally love the new patch , but the weight is a mess . All of us that drive FZR´s are going to have alot of trouble against FXR´s in the future . :schwitz: I will still be driving the FZR in the future , but not with as much fun as i used to . ...Well in my first post I did say that we had not refined the GTR handicaps, and the purpose of this thread is to get the weights right. I can change the handicap on any car at any time by typing in one line of text. Then within 90 seconds, all cars of that type online at that time, will have their handicap adjusted.

Just a few ideas, we need to test this online more (with decent drivers, not cockup artists on wheels like me). I suggest that until later this week the ballasts don't change, but then have a further look and then take ballast out of the XRT/ballast in to the RB4/restrictor plates in the FZR.Yes, no rush, let people adjust their setups and see what the good drivers can do on some different tracks.

Anyway it doesn't even have to be refined in test patch stage, because that's the whole idea of this system, I can change the global handicaps at any time.

[W1ldPort75]

Scawen maybe we can give the FZR 50 k´s instead of 100 ? Maybe it will work then :thumb: . And the XRR 25 ? The FXO with 30 k´s and the XRT with 10 hehehe . Who knows :) But please do not change anything else , i love the false starts etc etc , keep doing the good work you guys are doing . :thumbsup:

[Scawen]

Scawen maybe we can give the FZR 50 k´s instead of 100 ? Maybe it will work then :thumb: . And the XRR 25 ? The FXO with 30 k´s and the XRT with 10 hehehe . Who knows :)Well no-one knows if what we have already done is wrong, that's why I'm not changing it for I guess at least some days. We need real race data and results now by good drivers racing each other on different tracks for several days (as I said in my previous post) not just various numbers you can think up.

[W1ldPort75]

i didnt say that what you guys have done is wrong :D , but youre right lets do some testing before jumping or changing things . The good thing is that the FZR is now a little bit better to drive , easier then before , but also slower . I raced on BL1 yesterday with my FZR vs FXR and it was amazing how he kept behind me the hole time . I was doing 1.07-1.08 but he still kept behind me . The good thing is that all FXR drivers now have a chance to keep up with the FZR´s . I have been driving offline and online testing both cars and i must say i changed my mind . Lots of fun and good battles coming up :thumb:

[Flotch]

1) should we try with clutch pack or with older setups (locked diff), as I'm not sure I will be quicker with the clutch pack (wich is a lot better than before, but I'm still not so confident when braking)?
2) will tire physics change in the next patch (for the FXO mainly, 'cause FWD are a bit too much oversteery on throttle, giving it a crazy advantage compare to what you can have irl)? and will the rear tires of the FZR still as large as they are now or not?

[AndroidXP]

I think first and foremost the classes should be balanced to provide optimal racing on pickup races and races that are short enough not to require a pit stop, simply because these type of races happen most often in LFS.

League races with one or more pitstops can then offset the tyre and fuel consumption advantage of FXR/XRR by adding additional weight/handicaps to them. That way everyone should be happy :)

[X-Ter]

I have not thested this as turough (spelling?) as I would like, but the main goal with this sim should be to simulate reality, right? And so, handicaps and balancing should work as they do in real life, right? Well then...
Has anyone watched the system used by Dutch Supercar Challenge? They use a simple horsepower to weight system to balance out the cars within the classes, and it seems to work like a charm. No complaints what so ever about that system for several seasons now.

If I do the same in the GTR class, and balance out all three cars so they get the same horsepower to weight, I still end up with an FZR that is fast, an FXR that is stable and slow, and an XRR that is still the underdog cause of lower top speed and its handling. This leads me to think that something is missing in the current physics model, or something is plainly wrong.

I'm off now to try the same with the TBO class.

[ATHome]

I think it should be a server side option, as there will be tracks where 50 or 100 kilos are a great disadvantage.

:scratchch

[11SuLLy11]

will the extra added weight slow down cars,so all wrs will not be broken again due to reduced speed,sorry if im getting the wrong point here ?:scratchch

[Flotch]

I have not thested this as turough (spelling?) as I would like, but the main goal with this sim should be to simulate reality, right? And so, handicaps and balancing should work as they do in real life, right? Well then...
Has anyone watched the system used by Dutch Supercar Challenge? They use a simple horsepower to weight system to balance out the cars within the classes, and it seems to work like a charm. No complaints what so ever about that system for several seasons now.

If I do the same in the GTR class, and balance out all three cars so they get the same horsepower to weight, I still end up with an FZR that is fast, an FXR that is stable and slow, and an XRR that is still the underdog cause of lower top speed and its handling. This leads me to think that something is missing in the current physics model, or something is plainly wrong.

I'm off now to try the same with the TBO class.
FZR is having wider rear tires than the 2 other GTR, and is having a NA engine.
FXR has a lot of power loss in transmission.
So, FZR is always faster (I would prefer some loss in the engine instead of having more weight...or a crap torque that makes it handle not very well), and on fast tracks, the XRR will take too much advantage in top speed against the FXR :shrug: .
Those are the problems imo.


will the extra added weight slow down cars,so all wrs will not be broken again due to reduced speed,sorry if im getting the wrong point here ?
incompatible means reset ;)
edit: according to Scawen:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=393666#post393666

[Vain]

Can you perhaps use an LFSW script that displays the best current online-pbs for a certain selection of benchmark-tracks to compare the different cars?
Say you take the best 50 XRT pbs from Bl1, Bl1R, So1, So4R, etc. etc. and compare them to the best 50 FXO pbs. that should be a proper measure of the relative pace of the cars.
Then take into consideration that the FXO pays for it's improved handling by a horrible start off the line and you should be able to track down a very good balancing within a few weeks.

Of course there are a couple of tracks where people cut a lot. e.g. KY3, KY3R and BL1R can't be chosen for such a comparison.

Vain

[hannu]

made a little test aroung blackwood rev on TBO class. Did about 10 laps on each car and 30% fuel.
with rb4 and xrt the difference isnt huge from previous patch but fxo is about 1 slower that it used to be.
Extra mass doesnt affect on xrt enough and its topspeed is fastest from these 3. with xrt and rb4 i managed to get about 0.3sec from my pb but fxo toke me more than 1 sec away form my best. this test was made on sets for previous patches.


i think xrt is the dominant one now mostly coz the top speed. fxo and rb4 were ecual i think.

i might be wrong thou:)

[Motörhead V8]

well, how abou try to leave the FZR with 90kg of ballast instead of 100?
also, remove 5kg of ballast on the XRR

IMO the FZR must be a little bit faster than the other GTR's, due its NA engine and centre of gravity
the XRR should have more top speed than others gtr's, due its turbo engine
the FXR it's fine IMO

of course, it should not be like before the patch, where the FZR was a lot more faster than the others GTR's

[geeman1]

incompatible means reset ;)
edit: according to Scawen:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=393666#post393666
Not this time. This is only multiplayer incompatible patch. Physics are the same (except preload, but it does not matter), so all old replays are still compatible.

@11SuLLy11: These handicaps are only used online, so in the hotlap mode they are gone.

[dev]

made a little test aroung blackwood rev on TBO class. Did about 10 laps on each car and 30% fuel.
with rb4 and xrt the difference isnt huge from previous patch but fxo is about 1 slower that it used to be.
Extra mass doesnt affect on xrt enough and its topspeed is fastest from these 3. with xrt and rb4 i managed to get about 0.3sec from my pb but fxo toke me more than 1 sec away form my best. this test was made on sets for previous patches.


i think xrt is the dominant one now mostly coz the top speed. fxo and rb4 were ecual i think.

i might be wrong thou:)
Yes, thats because of the long straight.... Try the same thing on a track where no car can hit its max speed. I doubt the xrt will be the fastest...

[Jakg]

Replays are incompatible, though, although Scawen has said there are no OTHER physics changes

Hotlaps WILL be reset when this is released

[geeman1]

Replays are incompatible, though, although Scawen has said there are no OTHER physics changesIt can play the hotlaps made by the old version, even though there is one physics change - clutch preload.MP replays are incompatible, but SP replays are not (or maybe W9 replays can't be played on W or earlier, but other way it should work).

[Hyperactive]

...
Bear in mind - especially for the TBO's each track is different. I suggest that the ballast amounts are different for rallycross tracks (which wil naturally give the RB4 a massive advantage due to its four wheel drive system) and paved circuits.
...

I wanted to comment this one.

Are the rallycross tracks "inluded" in the balancing?

The RB4 is quite a bit faster on the rallycross tracks but loses on tarmac, at least now. As I see it there are two options: rallycross and tarmac either have different balances or rallycross should be left out totally from the balancing.

The first option is quite useless option because (as I've understood) the balancing is just a test patch feature to balance the cars in the next incompatible patch. = to have different balances for rally and tarmac would mean that we have 2 versions of each cars. Of course, having rallycross versions would be a new car class and could be balanced quite well for rallycross tracks. But people would also want to drive those on tarmac where the balance would be totally wrong. As would be the balance of the normal TBOs on rally. Also if rallycross has an effect on the balancing it will totally mess the balancing for the RB4 because the rallycross times make it look more competitive than what it actually is.

Leaving rallycross out from the balancing means that RB4 will be over a second faster on all rallycross tracks. However, as an awd car on tracks where the cars are most of the time traction limited, the awd has a substantial benefit and imho should stay that way- At the same time it will mean that RB4 is the super rallycross TBO. There is of course the possibility that RB4 rallycross is left out from the balancing and the FXO&XRT get somewhat balanced for rallycrossing too. What kind of effect would this have on tarmac balancing...? :scratchch

All that being said, rallycross shouldn't have effect on the balancing because the cars themselves aren't made for rallycross. They are tarmac track racers primarily :)


Then on the other thing...

I read from the first post that the FXO will get narrower tires in the next patch with several other balancings. To be honest, what's the point to try to balance the cars now when the cars will change (noticeably?) in the next incompatible patch? Wouldn't it be wiser to balance the cars with all the bells and whistles implmented? To have a short test patch balancing era for few weeks before releasing the next incompatible patch? Maybe even some kind of small hotlapping competition to get the best times for few totally different tracks to make sure the cars are close? Winner gets Leo for a week or LX8 or something ;). Like a week or two to see that the cars are indeed close enough each others and make some small changes if not and then release the final new incompatible patch?

I am just wondering how useful it is to know how much ballast and restriction the FXO/FZR needs now when the car's CoG, tires and weight will change? Of course it is important to balance the cars now but if there are more serious improvements coming for the turbos and suspensions the balancing that is ongoing now (?) will be made void just because "the big factors weren't in?".

Again I'm telling the devs what to do (:D) but to remind: the BF1 had the suspension damage "bug" which could have been "properly" fixed if the patch had been out as a test patch for a short while before making it public. And there was some small changes to the performance figures on some cars to balance the classes done in last incompatible patch (april 2006) but these changes didn't really change anything, except the stats shown in setup menus :).

And as was pointed out earlier, most of LFS races are done on public servers on short races. Iirc the XRR and FZR were quite balanced in long races in Q version. The XRR needed less fuel but was slightly slower meaning that it would need less pitstops and shorter pitstops. But on public servers the FZR was the only winner, with equal drivers the FZR was always faster. With this in mind I ask, it is even possible to balance the classes on both short and long races? With current LFS we can't balance the cars with reliability, which is one way of balancing in the future when LFS has the support for it. To push the car all the time should increase the chance of mechanical failure (of some sort) and this could be used to make one car faster but less reliable. But, again, would it be possible to give one car a slight boost on performance and keep the class tight on both short and long races? I don't think so. Of course I'm not saying that there should not be any differences on reliability but reliability can't really be used as tool to balance short races.

Is the balance decision based on short races (4 laps with GTRs on KY3) or on long races >1 hour? I am not asking for answer, I am just saying that balancing for the long runs will unblanace the short runs. and balancing the short runs also keeps the long runs more balanced :)

None of this what I just wrote is not really very useful but I hope it gives new viewpoints and maybe new ideas for our devs :)

[/flood]

False starts rock!

[hannu]

Yes, thats because of the long straight.... Try the same thing on a track where no car can hit its max speed. I doubt the xrt will be the fastest...

yes i agree but these 3 cars are totally different from eachothers so you can never get them within 0.1sec on all tracks. rb4 may dominate on shorter courses like SO3 sprint but if there is heavy accelerations and long straights xrt is gonna own there.

i just picked this track coz i had pretty good sets for all these cars plus there is tighter part of the track and then a long staight.

I may have been a bit unclear there when i said xrt is the dominant. but on bl1r it is I think.

[R3DMAN]

i think the FXO is abit too heavy.. or maybe take the intake restriction off.

[ATHome]

Simple question: Why not reduce the weight of the RB4 a little and give it a bit more hp/tourque ?

If you'll do that, you don't need to handicap the FXO so much :scratchch

[AndroidXP]

Just FYI, I did a quick analysis of the TBO WR times on all tracks excluding rallyX and oval, average laptimes are as follows:

1) FXO: 1:47.36
2) XRT: 1:48.68 (+1.31)
3) RB4: 1:49.03 (+1.67)

Locations sorted from most to least advantage for FXO:
Kyoto (-2.27 avg)
Aston (-1.91 avg)
Westhill (-1.85 avg)
Fern Bay (-1.21 avg)
Blackwood (-1.00 avg)
South City (-0.70 avg)

[X-Ter]

Ok, I've been at it since my last post and I messed around with the TBO cars.

As per the DSC, I established a minimum weight for all three cars, 1300Kg. I then restricted the air intake to give them the same horsepower to weight ratio, 180bhp/ton. South City Classic was chosen for this test.

Best lap: - Race Time (3laps):
XRT: 55:82 - 2:55,79
FXO: 54:65 - 2:52,38
RB4: 55:82 - 2:56,70

I should also tell you that I usually don't drive the FXO that much since it's not a favourite car. It still ace this test by more than a second faster laptime. The above is the best times after driving 5 races each in each car to give them all an honest run. FXO is still to bleeding fast compared to the other two. Should also be said that I'm not teh fastest driver in the world, but I'm usually very consistant.

[Jonesy_]

On South City Classic the three seems to be quite nicely balanced.
Been driving mostly the XRT, achieving lap time of 51.35 after several laps.
Did a quick try with the fxo also, only 25 laps and got 51.52.
I am not really experienced with fxo neither so in right hands I'd sugges it gets a low 51 at least.
Didn't try the rb4, but the fact it hasn't changed I can tell from the WR that it's good 51.3 to 51.6 in a quick race.

So on a track where both speed and cornering abilities matters, they seem to be quite nicely balanced for shorter races.

[Cue-Ball]

I have one question in regards to the car balancing:

Scawen has stated that the FXO will likely get a bit heavier and have narrower tires in the next big patch. However; since everyone is doing their balancing testing using the current (larger) tires, will all of this balancing be for naught once the tires are changed? If we eventually determine that the TBO class is "balanced" pretty well by adding X number of pounds to the FXO, what will happen when the next patch comes out and the FXO suddenly has tires that are 10% narrower? Won't we have to start this balancing act all over again?

[axus]

I have one question in regards to the car balancing:

Scawen has stated that the FXO will likely get a bit heavier and have narrower tires in the next big patch. However; since everyone is doing their balancing testing using the current (larger) tires, will all of this balancing be for naught once the tires are changed? If we eventually determine that the TBO class is "balanced" pretty well by adding X number of pounds to the FXO, what will happen when the next patch comes out and the FXO suddenly has tires that are 10% narrower? Won't we have to start this balancing act all over again?

Scawen said that his intention is to have classes balanced when a physics patch is released... however that's not always the case because of setups developing and so on, hence the master restrictions - they're just there in case the classes aren't balanced when the patch is first released. Any major physics change may essentially cause balancing to get messed up.

[Cue-Ball]

That's what I'm concerned about. I don't think the restrictions/ballast should be removed in the future, because they're very helpful for handicapping, if nothing else. I just think it's very likely that the community will figure out how to make the cars even, then we'll get another patch which gives the FXO narrower tires and puts us back to square one. Perhaps we need a patch with the new, skinnier tires on the FXO before we put too much effort into trying to balance the class?

[Bob Smith]

On the drivetrain efficiency, is the figures in LFS wheel horsepower or measured at the flywheel? If the latter, what are the wheel figures?
The latter. The wheel figures are 85% of the engine figures for FWD and RWD cars, and 80% of the engine figures for AWD cars.

Scawen - this seems a somewhat odd tactic given you like to solve things the "proper way" where possible. IMO one large issue with the FXR and XRR is the turbo lag. Solve that and I'd expect the trio to get much closer without additional balancing (although I'm not saying that would be enough on it's own). ATM it's just frustrating to have massive AWD traction in the FXR but not actually be able to supply power to the wheels until the car is straight anyway, thus almost nullifying the traction advantage.

[Gimpster]

Cue-Ball I don't think they are going to get removed it after the in-compatable. From what Scawen was saying in this thread I now think the volentary weight and restrictor will remain and the global handicap will also remain. Scawen stated that he can change the global handicap in about 90 sec if there needs to be further tweaking down the road. By adding this system he has essentualy built in a way to allow for ongoing ballance without the need for a patch if more ballance is deamed nessasary.

In my testing with the AI I am finding the RB4 hhas the edge over the XRT by a small margin, and the FXO is still just too bloddy fast. I think most of the FXO's advantage at this point is its light weight and wide tires. It can still stop in less space and corner faster.

[Gimpster]

The latter. The wheel figures are 85% of the engine figures for FWD and RWD cars, and 80% of the engine figures for AWD cars.

Scawen - this seems a somewhat odd tactic given you like to solve things the "proper way" where possible. IMO one large issue with the FXR and XRR is the turbo lag. Solve that and I'd expect the trio to get much closer without additional balancing (although I'm not saying that would be enough on it's own). ATM it's just frustrating to have massive AWD traction in the FXR but not actually be able to supply power to the wheels until the car is straight anyway, thus almost nullifying the traction advantage.

Bob I have to agree with you here, I never understood why the FXR and XRR did not also get a bigger more powerfull N/A engine instead of a bigger turbo. The reason I like the FZR so much is because of the lack of turbo lag and the lower torque. Its a peaky engine and I like those. Although there is a way to use the lag to your advantage. It just means you need to drive differently, for example get back on the gas earlier so that when you arrive at the place where you want power, you have it.

[Jamexing]

The latter. The wheel figures are 85% of the engine figures for FWD and RWD cars, and 80% of the engine figures for AWD cars.

Scawen - this seems a somewhat odd tactic given you like to solve things the "proper way" where possible. IMO one large issue with the FXR and XRR is the turbo lag. Solve that and I'd expect the trio to get much closer without additional balancing (although I'm not saying that would be enough on it's own). ATM it's just frustrating to have massive AWD traction in the FXR but not actually be able to supply power to the wheels until the car is straight anyway, thus almost nullifying the traction advantage.

If things ran my way, we'll fix the turbo issues first before any serious balancing occurs.

Oh yeah, can't remember how many times in RB4/XFR, trying to exit the corner with a carefully exceuted full throttle blast in an attempt to gain maximum advantage from AWD traction, allowing one to exit as quickly as possible whilst drifting radially in a controlled fashion. Only to experience a major letdown thanks to ridiculous lag and even more ridiculous powerbands. For the RB4, we're better off making an exact numerical copy of the power/torqueband of a 90's 4G63 optimally tuned for 250 peak hp. Don't see how copyright would be an issue since the name "4G63" isn't used at all. Same for the XRT.

Or we could just plug in the engine from the RA into the RB4 and XRT, with some tweaks at the upper rev regions to get 250hp at 6500rpm instead of 245hp at around 5900rpm. Without the silly lag in turbo response, of course. :)

And when was the last time anyone saw a car like FXO (e.g. Honda Integra) with 250mm wide tires? No point trying to seriously balance the TBO class with this factor still within the equation. I'll rather have those tires reduced to say a more reasonable 235mm width before even considering serious attempts to balance the TBOs.

I'll like to leave the weight and intake restriction handicaps in, but will not force any of them on yet("global handicap"). The weight range adjustments seem fine, though the intake restrictions are frankly too ridiculous when adjusted to the greater levels. At 50% restriction (max), the TBOs manage to make just over 100hp. Tried that with the lowered gearing to suit and frankly there's no good reason to restrict them THAT far. What are we trying to do, race RB4s against XRs, XFs or even UF1s? :shrug: There's no way to assign appropriate numbers to ballasts and intake restriction until hotlaps and long distance tests are run extensively. And I find it hard to take balancing too seriosuly when some major physics issues like turbo modelling remain. Oh hail the RA, needs about 3 seconds just to fully spool its tiny low boost turbo! :D

[Cue-Ball]

I agree with Jamexing. I think that global handicaps should just be left off until the turbo modeling and tires are taken care of. Fix those two things, then watch the STCC and MoE servers to see how the cars shake out. Then the devs can implement whatever global balancing is necessary to make the cars relatively even.

[theycallmeebryan]

I will agree that the turbo physics and the fxo's changes need to be addressed before (or in tail with) any further balancing takes place. It is great to know that the balancing configurations can be worked rather easily in a couple of minutes. This is part of the reason why we can dial in the cars now, then allow for the suttle changes. After balancing the cars in the games current state, we will have a great base for the patch changes to come, and will only have to make slight adjustments to those cars changed.

If the fxo is getting heavier and skinnier tires, we can then lessen the ballast, and maybe lessen any intake restriction to bring it back even with the other TBO's. The other TBO cars will be already be balanced to each other respectively, and only the fxo will have to be brought back in to spec to the other TBO cars.

That being said, changing or, in better terms, FIXING the turbo physics will absolutely change every turbo car in the game. For the TBO cars, full boost should be acheived at highest around 3000rpm.... this is keeping in mind the average turbo size on a stock 2.0L (ish) turbocharged car. Right now it seems like each turbo car has a turbo 50% larger than what a stock car would have. In the RB4's case, full boost isnt reached until 5000+rpm! I imagine putting a diesel's big turbo into a inline 4 cylinder car with the wastegate set at .8bar. That motor will have a hell of a time spooling that turbo.

I think the turbo characteristics for the XRR and FXR are alright at best, again ofcourse it could use some tweaking. But you essentially have a race car runing nearly 2bar that would probably have a moderately large sized turbo, and you'd have to expect some lag. There are alot of factors that play a part in how fast a turbo will spool, including cam specifications, collector size and length, turbine size, backpressure, load, ambient air temperature, exhaust characteristics, ignition and fuel injection tuning, etc etc etc.

One small note that i'd like to mention, i have noticed in patch W10 that the shift light for the RB4 comes on alot later than it used to. I find the light coming on around 7000rpms, where it usually came on before in the low 6000s.... unless i am ofcourse imagining things :shrug:

Another thing i'd like to add. If any of you have messed around with LFS TWEAK in patch V, you will notice the flaws in the current turbo -> engine physics, and how they relate and interact with eachother.

You can make an N/A V8 5.0L car with 500 hp/tq, in which the engine will perform a certain way.
Take that same configuration, throw in 45lbs of boost. Now, as all of you should know, in most turbo cars you can theoretically accelerate close to redline without entering into boost. So, in this situation you should be able to accelerate with a certain amount of throttle without boost to redline and acheive the same ammount of acceleration as you would with the same throttle position in the N/A version. It does not act the same. For some reason, even though the car does not enter boost, there is significantly and noticeably more power in the boosted car with NO boost, suggesting flaw somewhere in the equation.

I hope i didnt lose anyone there... :)

[Blowtus]

Prior to positive boost, manifold pressure is still substantially higher in turbocharged cars than NA. The turbo is still pushing air around, it just hasn't reached the arbitrary line in the sand you're drawing, of positive boost.

[theycallmeebryan]

Prior to positive boost, manifold pressure is still substantially higher in turbocharged cars than NA. The turbo is still pushing air around, it just hasn't reached the arbitrary line in the sand you're drawing, of positive boost.

I know that, im talking about a VERY noticeable difference, as if the engine actually is seeing a significant amount of boost even though it isnt....

[geeman1]

I agree with Jamexing. I think that global handicaps should just be left off until the turbo modeling and tires are taken care of. Fix those two things, then watch the STCC and MoE servers to see how the cars shake out. Then the devs can implement whatever global balancing is necessary to make the cars relatively even.You missed the point of global handicapping.. It's purpose is to keep the cars balanced before those things can be fixed. Global handicaps are just quick fixes to keep cars balanced untill the real fixes are made.
Some things need fixing and no doubt they will be fixed eventually, but why shouldn't we have equal cars in the meantime?

[Bob Smith]

Agreed, both are useful solutions, I got a response from Scawen when I posted (elsewhere, since this forum got closed):
I am aware of the need for improvements in engine torque curves and turbo simulation at some point
As usual, no estimates of time frames or even what patch we'll get it. Just a case of waiting and seeing.

Until they are fixed, I too would like to keep up with FXOs in the real men cars.

[nRcToretto]

I just want to give you my oppinion: I think the goal of the balancing is not to make the classes EQUAL at all!!!! Its about to bring them as near as possible with the easiest way: the weight!

Think of the whole thing. There will always be advantages for one or onother car on specific tracks, but thats the way its ment to be. If all cars would have the exactly same speed what intention would you have to drive one of the classes cars?

[Jamexing]

You missed the point of global handicapping.. It's purpose is to keep the cars balanced before those things can be fixed. Global handicaps are just quick fixes to keep cars balanced untill the real fixes are made.
Some things need fixing and no doubt they will be fixed eventually, but why shouldn't we have equal cars in the meantime?

Actually I do get the intention of global hansicaps, though honestly I have a hard time belieiving that extensive testing has already been done by the top regular LFS drivers for every track and car already in the limited time that patch W9 is out. If we had, all this could be nullified by the next significant physics upgrade, and it's all back to square one.

[AndroidXP]

And? No, there was no extensive testing - it's not even supposed to be a perfect balance, but a quick thing to fix the neverending moaning of the community. A physics update will come out which will remove the global handicaps so all our testing is going to waste. Well, all the setups and world records go to waste too, so compared to that I don't think it's a big loss at all :shrug:

[Scawen]

Jamexing, I think you and some others are overrating our perception of the importance and detail of the balancing required at the moment. We are not looking for extremely detailed and thorough work on finding the ideal balance, which, as you say, would be a waste of time. And you are underestimating the length of time to the physically incompatible version, it's not just around the corner, work has not started on my side of it yet (though of course Eric has done quite a lot for it). I won't answer any questions about that, it includes track updates and car interiors.

The situation is the physically incompatible version is several weeks away (much too far away to give an estimate) so between now and then we just want roughly balanced classes. It seems to be very good in the TBO class now, FXO is just not storming ahead leaving all other cars miles behind in the dust. The GTR class balancing is, so far, a little less refined and if we happen to hear back from several good drivers that the balancing is not working and we have just made another car the best instead of the FZR, then we can change it. I can change balancing for one car with one line of text. I won't rush into it though and that was my point earlier in the thread, we are waiting to hear back from some people, after some time.

Talk about other means of balancing and other elements of physical modelling that need improving is quite irrelevant, as that can't be done until the physically incompatible patch.

[Cue-Ball]

There will always be advantages for one or onother car on specific tracks, but thats the way its ment to be. If all cars would have the exactly same speed what intention would you have to drive one of the classes cars?I don't think anyone is confused about that.

Now that Scawen has made it more clear how the balancing is going to work, it makes a bit more sense. I suppose this means there will be the big, incompatible patch and then probably one more patch after that which reworks the car balance, assuming the physics changes make the cars unequal again. Sounds like a solid plan. Hopefully it won't have too much negative impact on leagues, but that really can't be helped, I guess.

[Arsenic_Fox]

personally i agree with the post above.. in real life, lets say.. ohh.. lemans or something. Not all the cars have the same specs, nor do they drive the same, or have the same speed. It mostly depends on the driver (as long as they are driving a car of the same class). In Formula 1, in the past, often the Ferraris have dominated, but there are places where it has issues. Maybe even farther in the future they could make certain brands of tires have issues... but... that belongs in the improvements section, and is just minor.

All im saying is that there will be that one car that is just awesome. The people who like the other cars will just have to use them when they know they can win... like... said before about RB4 having major tire wear... well, during a long race that is sure to hurt them. Its all about strategy..

[Locovich]

I´ve tested all the GTRs on Ky GP Long Rev and going straight to the point to give my opinion:

XRR with 25kg added and %2 of engine power restriction. The power-weight is the same as now (50kg added) but i think it´s better balanced with FXR.
FZR should have 50kg, and %1 of engine power restriction. The point is that the FZR has great aerodynamics, so in the same track where the XRR has 11 of rear wing (and the FXR has only 3!), the FZR uses 17 and is still faster on the straights. A reduction of power will force it to lower the wings to keep the speed on straights and reducing the downforce/grip on turns... just an opinion... hope is useful to you...:thumb:

Laptimes:
FXR, 2.13.5, R2-R2 racing set(not hotlap), 15% fuel (5 laps stint)
XRR, 2.13.3, R2-R2 racing set(not hotlap), 15% fuel (5 laps stint)
FZR, 2.13.7, R2-R2 racing set(not hotlap), 20% fuel (5 laps stint)

[thisnameistaken]

While I'm not complaining at all: Isn't car balancing something the beta team should be doing? :shrug: I always assume they're among the fastest and most experienced drivers we've got, so they should be best-suited to determining how well-balanced things are.

Good points from Bob about the importance of sorting the turbos out though.

[Burnzoire]

beta team??

this shit is ALPHA man, that much was clear when you signed up :)

[AndroidXP]

But there's usually a small group of people who have access to new features before major patches get released - these people are beta testing the alpha patches (of course they don't test the test patches, just the ones with incompatible version features).

[Eldanor]

beta team??

this shit is ALPHA man, that much was clear when you signed up :)

They are called beta testers, whatever the test.

[seinfeld]

I think adding weight, changine tyre size is the worst u can do, that changes the way the car handles, personally I think just power increase would be better, as the cars "personality" will be better kept then making it handle worse

[LRB_Aly]

Probably the change of tyres is only meant to reduce the grip, not the balance of the car. And I think that doesn't "worsen" the handling, it's only making it slower, increasing the braking way and slowing it in turns.

[R3DMAN]

i meantioed this in the w10 thread but ill remention it here,

how about making the other cars slightly faster than original instead of making the fxo slower.

for instance,

fxo leave alone, xrt add 10hp and the rb4 take some weight off it.

just a suggestion i dont know if it would really work.

[Jamexing]

I think adding weight, changine tyre size is the worst u can do, that changes the way the car handles, personally I think just power increase would be better, as the cars "personality" will be better kept then making it handle worse

Well, ballast and intake restrictions ARE the cheapest and easiest ways to get cars balanced fast. Judging by what Scawen said, the current global handicaps are just arbitrarily set based on some logic that only he knows. Things should change quite a bit when physics issues get addressed (eventually).

[Sp3cTr3]

I think the reason for narrowing the tires on the fxo is that they are too wide compared to what would actually be realistic to fit in real life. There was a thread once discussing the tiresizes (cant find it with search) but they concluded that the fxo was running 245's front and back while the xrt was running 205 and 215 I think it was.

and like LRB_Aly says, narrower tires will increase brakedistance and corner speed, not the overall balance of the car.

[KeiichiRX7]

Just a note from playing around with balancing for a slower class in my own server.

Maybe add a class list in the info tab, so the cars be be limited for different classes and classified accordingly.

For instance a class ive been toying with is GT300

each of the GTR's has been limited with the current ballast + an intake restrictor. The racing has become very very very competitive.

the total restrictions are:
FXR 36% intake restrictor, no ballast
XRR 36% intake restrictor, 50KG ballast (master server assigned minimum)
FZR 29% intake restrictor, 100KG ballast (master server assigned minimum)

racing is close and frenzied, cars gaining and losing in various sections, but no car with an obvious advantage over the others in short races.

[Cue-Ball]

Even if you managed to get the cars behaving closely, with those sorts of severe restrictions you're going to be looking at much slower GTRs. Any idea how much the lap times have fallen off? It would have to be a lot, I'd imagine.

[KeiichiRX7]

the laptimes HAVE dropped a lot in testing, but the racing is more competitive.

It's a bit of a trade off really i suppose. When the next patch goes official i want to run a league with the 2 classes, the GTR's and thier limited counterparts (much like the JGTC has GT500 and GT300). With the ballast system we played with the racing got even more intense, with the success ballast handicapping the faster drivers.

In the end you end up with just another racing class, slower, but very very competitive.

[Cue-Ball]

In the end you end up with just another racing class, slower, but very very competitive.Understandable. However, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing most of the GTR lovers to trade in their cars for one with 40% less power. ;)

You seem to have slowed all three cars substantially. It would seem like you should be able to remove ~30% of the intake restriction from all three cars and have them still run very even (29% is the least restricted of the three), without slowing them too significantly.

[AndroidXP]

Errr, I think he's trying to make a separate GTR class for his league(?). I don't think the values he posted were seriously meant for balancing the GTR class we currently have.

[KeiichiRX7]

AndroidXP's hit the nail on the head. In reality there re in fact several different classes of GT cars. with the restrictions i've introduced, these 3 cars have been placed in a lower class, and could potentially be run alongside thier unrestricted counterparts in a dual class GT series.

A quick little list of sellectable classes in the setup menu would be quite nice for quickly changing a car between spec sets, and classifying them correctly. For instance to apply the correct restrictors and ballast for the GT300 class ive devised you woudl simply swith the class from GTR to GT300 in the same way you take the top off in a UF1

[Fischfix]

when balancing out the classes we can only balance them out for a certain amount of laps. either short pickup races without pitstop or long distance races. if we level them out for short pickup races, the fzr will have a huge disadvantage on long distance racing because of the fact it uses 1/3 more fuel. so it always runs with more fuel compared to fxr and xrr (=> higher weight) AND also has to pit in more often.

i am not sure how the balancing between xrr and fzr is at the moment, but as far as i can see by now, the FZR is the big loser. i am also interested in this things because i am running a league (btw. the dates are out now) with xrr only but i might use fxr/fzr as well in it...

[Fischfix]

ok i made some tests today to send some input for balancing.

i was testing full throttle abilities of the GTRs as i only have good oval setups and not enough good setups for different cirucuit tracks. so this testing is about oval. but also some information can be seen with circuit racing i think.

i was testing with my favorite setups and the AI (so i did not have to do it all by myself) which were before the patch like FZR about 1/10 to 2/10 faster then XRR and about 1 sec. faster then FXR.

first i did about 250 laps just to get the AI used to the setups. then i made some tests with 30% fuel.

The outcome was like this:
XRR: 39s11 0.9%/lap fuel
FZR: 39s13 1.2%/lap fuel
FXR: 38s80 0.9%/lap fuel

the FXR laptime is what i was used to have with this setup (maybe a bit faster but thats the AI) XRR and FZR are much slower. i had about 39.75 to 39.85 before the balancing, the ai was a bit slower. but and this is new, both cars are almost the same. the xrr is even a bit faster.

the fzr needs about 30% more fuel. so in a longer race this really can matter. in short pickup races i think (at least on the oval) XRR and FZR are balanced. xrr has a turbo, fzr has better traction so ...
the only thing that lacks is the FXR imo. give this car more HP or make it lighter and then it equals on top speed. however it is likely that the FXR is faster on some circuit tracks AND it is MUCH easier to handle due to 4wd.

this were my results.

[Fetzo]

i dont understand how the AI can help in balancing the cars. the AI is the most undeveloped part of lfs and its performance is very weak.

even if the AI is faster in one car, its still far away from the limit. the only thing such tests prove is that the particular AI that is used (it is known that each AI has a different performance on each track/car combo) is faster with one car and slower with the other one.

imho, the AI cannot be a benchmark for anything.

its like testing the performance of sportcars with jeremy clarkson on the wheel. thank god we have the stig.

[Fischfix]

the ai is the only driver that we know how it behaves. everything else is down to an individual. the ai drives when it has reached its limit more then 200 laps without any change in split and laptime. this kind of stability you won't find in any human driver.

the ai sucks when it comes down to racing, thats true. but when it comes to the fact to have stable laptimes then you are on the right way. i don't know much about the AI on circuit tracks and it wasn't what i was testing at all. to compare cars you need either the perfect driver or one that can drive 250 laps and each is the same.

but yep it does not help US to balance the cars, because WE are not programing the game. it is up for the DEVS to decide which input they think is helpful and which is not. i was spending 5 hours now doing tests and stuff, trying out different setups and different AIs and what were your results?

there is not "a way" to get balanced cars. you need to collect as much data as possible and then THE DEVS decide what to do. so these were my 50cent of data to it...

[Blowtus]

Just because the ai drives 'stably' doesn't mean they are relevant in comparison to human drivers.

[Resound]

I've always thought that the obvious way to bring the FZR back into line with the other two is to make it a good deal peakier. A NA engine making that sort of power to capacity would have a very narrow rev range where it's making good power. So by doing this you'd wind up with a car that, relative to the other two, is fast down the straight but will burp and fart a bit until it gets on cam out of corners. You can get around that a bit with careful gear selection but it would still give the others the advantage out of corners and suchlike. I've always liked racing cars that are essentially equal in laptime but with different strengths. On some tracks in S1 racing MRT against LX6 gave very similar laptimes but because they managed it in different ways there was a heap of overtaking and the racing was really interesting.

[Fischfix]

Just because the ai drives 'stably' doesn't mean they are relevant in comparison to human drivers.

they are not relevant in comparison to humans. but we ain't comparing humans to AI but FZR agains XRR agains FXR. to se how the top-speed and behaviour on full throttle turns is and fuel consumption compared among the cars it does not matter who is driving. and imo this counts also on circuit tracks.

to compare different cars you need at least one stable factor. a human isn't stable unless he can drive 250 laps without any change in laptime the AI can allthough you won't get any information about the "feeling" of the car which we are aware of i think because it hasn't changed that much with the weight penalty. the fxr is still the tank, the fzr still the easier car to handle.

[duke_toaster]

the laptimes HAVE dropped a lot in testing, but the racing is more competitive.

[QUOTE]It's a bit of a trade off really i suppose. When the next patch goes official i want to run a league with the 2 classes, the GTR's and thier limited counterparts (much like the JGTC has GT500 and GT300).

There are some rules other than different engines - the GT300 cars actually have to be remotely like the road cars, you could probably put a Toyota body on a Nissan and no-one would be any the wiser.

Keiichi, how do these cars relate performancewise to the XFR and UFR? A league with restricted FXR and XRR, with the UFR and XFR as one class - if the balancing was right - would be good. It would loosely resemble the BTCC, with some bigger cars (The FXR would be a little like the Vectra, the XRR like the 3 series) and some smaller ones like the Civics and Rick Kerry's BMW 120d which in the right hands and prepared properly would be as good as the 320si but it's badly prepared.

The bigger cars would be better on the faster tracks, but put them somewhere twisty the little cars would shine. Like the days in the BTCC where there were Minis that got past Detroit's finest on the turns only to get gobbled up on the straights (ad infinium).

I have spotted a potential problem with ballasting the FZR - surely the extra weight could be stuck at the front to solve it's weight distribution problem.

Another thought. The MRT has an air restrictor (FSAE rules), would it be possible at some point to take that out? It would get 260 HP IIRC.

[Bob Smith]

Another thought. The MRT has an air restrictor (FSAE rules), would it be possible at some point to take that out? It would get 260 HP IIRC.
260hp! From a 600cc engine? The turbo charger is only quite small you know.

[tristancliffe]

The CBR600 (which I think is the engine used in the MRT5) is rated at 117hp for around that age. A far far cry from the 260 you quote. Remove the restrictor and keep the turbo and you'll maybe see 150hp.

[KeiichiRX7]

[quote=KeiichiRX7;402358]the laptimes HAVE dropped a lot in testing, but the racing is more competitive.



There are some rules other than different engines - the GT300 cars actually have to be remotely like the road cars, you could probably put a Toyota body on a Nissan and no-one would be any the wiser.

Keiichi, how do these cars relate performancewise to the XFR and UFR? A league with restricted FXR and XRR, with the UFR and XFR as one class - if the balancing was right - would be good. It would loosely resemble the BTCC, with some bigger cars (The FXR would be a little like the Vectra, the XRR like the 3 series) and some smaller ones like the Civics and Rick Kerry's BMW 120d which in the right hands and prepared properly would be as good as the 320si but it's badly prepared.

The bigger cars would be better on the faster tracks, but put them somewhere twisty the little cars would shine. Like the days in the BTCC where there were Minis that got past Detroit's finest on the turns only to get gobbled up on the straights (ad infinium).

I have spotted a potential problem with ballasting the FZR - surely the extra weight could be stuck at the front to solve it's weight distribution problem.

Another thought. The MRT has an air restrictor (FSAE rules), would it be possible at some point to take that out? It would get 260 HP IIRC.


Actually by JGTC rules the basic engine (pre tuning the hell out of it) has to hail from the same manufacturer as the unibody. Thus Nissan could build a skyline that sports the big nasty V8 from the Titan, but not one with an old supra engine.

We actualy tried dropping the GTR's down to the level of the CGTR's, but it turns out with the big downforce and wider tires that the cornering speeds of the GTR's are a bit faster, while with similar lap times the compact GTR's tend to pull away on the straights.

[cr4zyFiST]

i dont think thats a good way you are working atm to make cars more similar. LFS is a 99% online Multiplayer game. it is not good to give a car 490 ps with 1100 kilo, and in multiplayer the cars weight is 100 kilo more. its the worst solution i can think about. there must be better ways to make cars similar and the races exciting.
my suggestion is to give the FXR more power and reduce weight from XRR because the engine from this car is smaller than FZR and the weight is atm the same. i think, that would be more realistic. the weight from FXR should be the same as FZR because its is a smaller engine but 4 WD is more weight then 2WD.

thx for thinking about that, and i hope there will be changes, whatever they come.

[CLRS530]

I don´t think he will think about that ;)
The cars were build from real models with those values.
Give them a handicap is the best way. Also the difference in offline <-> online is only temporary because the hotlaps shall be stay compatible

[Maelstrom]

The rwd cars should perform better than fwd and 4wd! It is harder to drive a rwd. The driver is more likely to do a mistake. If all the cars perform the same everybody's gonna drive the 4wd cause it 's easier!

Second i would prefer the balancing to be optional with the posibility to enforce it on servers that want to use it!

Just my opinion :shrug:

[Jamexing]

The rwd cars should perform better than fwd and 4wd! It is harder to drive a rwd. The driver is more likely to do a mistake. If all the cars perform the same everybody's gonna drive the 4wd cause it 's easier!

Second i would prefer the balancing to be optional with the posibility to enforce it on servers that want to use it!

Just my opinion :shrug:

4WDs are easier to dirve for people who are new to it stays within the limits of the tires' grip. But do you have the slightest idea what it takes to master 4WD?

For a FWD, if you use too much throttle on exit, the worst that could happens is terminal understeer. With RWDs, its either understeer or oversteer. With a very well balanced mechanical 4WD(e.g. RB4), if you overstep it, it'll drift radially (i.e. crab walk) into a 4 wheeled drift, the hardest state to control, as all 4 tires exceed their limits simultanously. Most mistake it as massive understeer, but it's not.

In short? With 2WD it's possible to overstep quite a bit and still save your butt. With 4WD, get significantly over the limit and it kills you without hestitation as it drifts radially towards the telephone pole/wall/tress/etc.

[LRB_Aly]

it kills you without hestitation as it drifts radially towards the telephone pole/wall/tress/etc.

:smileypul You're talking out of experience? :)

[Fetzo]

you have to be pretty clumsy to do that telephone pole trick with a 4wd. in a rwd you would have spun seconds ago in a fwd you would have hit the tree 20 meters in front of the pole HEAD ON.......AND you just have to kick the brick from the throttle and you 4wd is stable again.....again, try that in a rwd.

driving a car at its limit is always difficult, but 4wd is definately the easiest choice.

[spyshagg]

changing tyre size, weight ratio or early toque curve will alter the behavior "personality" of the cars.
As i consider this the one thing to never change from any car we already know how to drive, i highly recommend to change things not linearly.

- limit how high a engine revs due to, say, increased engine resistance or aerodynamic resistance, but leave the early torque/hp curve intact. Not linearly.
I would try to save how the current cars enter, turn, and leave the corners, and change only the facts that dont alter this.


- Easy way out would be to limit the setup capability of x or y car. Putting limits on how much the rolling bar adjusts or how much soft the suspension can get. making the car less hotlappable

[Jamexing]

you have to be pretty clumsy to do that telephone pole trick with a 4wd. in a rwd you would have spun seconds ago in a fwd you would have hit the tree 20 meters in front of the pole HEAD ON.......AND you just have to kick the brick from the throttle and you 4wd is stable again.....again, try that in a rwd.

driving a car at its limit is always difficult, but 4wd is definately the easiest choice.

Used to drive a 4wd at the limit on loose surfaces, so I'm very familiar with their on limit and past limit behavior. The car had 50/50 F/R 4wd and a weight distribution of 51/49 F/R. Still driving it today. I actually learnt to drive in RWD 1st, then FWD before getting to 4WD.

With FWD, you would sense the front end struggling, so there's plenty of warning. With RWD, you could sense the excess change of yaw rate, so there's plenty of feedback to tell you how much to push just to keep it from spinning. Provided of course that it is wisely setup to understeer mildy at the limit.

With a well balanced 4WD, when it does start to break traction, it does so 4 wheels at a time almost simultaneously, so there's relatively little warning and a narrower margin of time to respond. If it's seriously powerful (e.g. Group B monster) AND almost neutral it could kill you without warning. It'll just grip and grip and grip until it suddenly lets all 4 tires go. These traits are what made them REALLY hard to drive consistently at the absolute limit even for top rally drivers. That's why to keep powerful 4WDs easy to drive, they are deliberately set to understeer quite a bit for street use (e.g. older Subarus). Note I'm limiting my discussion to mechanical 4WDs with passive diffs only.

For the EASIEST choice to drive at the limit, choose FWDs. Plenty of warning of impending doom if you don't bother to correct for overcooking corner entry (within reason of course). Choose RWDs to master throttle control and finesse. Then choose 4WDs to drive the wheels off by using every bit of traction all tires have.

[Fetzo]

yep a group b monster is something different.....because it has more power ,a superlaggy engine, not very advanced differentials and a short wheel base.

put a audi sport quattro e2 engine in a renault 5 turbo maxi and you will have a much more devastating result.

i dont wan't to push this too far offtopic, but i really dont think that 4wd is the most difficult transmission type to drive at the limit. a good 4wd handles pretty neutral while the other car types understeer or oversteer.

if someone does not notice that his car is 4-wheel drifting he should worry about his perception, not his car.

i'll stop now, this is about lfs-balancing not about group b quattros.

[Fabri91]

I thought: maybe making the FXR a RWD isn't a bad idea, something like the Opel Astra from DTM, a couple years ago, when coupes were used...

[dev]

I thought: maybe making the FXR a RWD isn't a bad idea, something like the Opel Astra from DTM, a couple years ago, when coupes were used...
Lets make the FZR a FWD :D

I just wanted to make an equally stupid suggestion...

[Fischfix]

i have a question: is the global balancing always applied to the car or only when there is a FXR AND a e.g. a FZR on track.
so when i run a server just with XRR available, there is no need for balancing them down with 50kg because everyone is running the same car.

[Belain]

it is always applied fischy!

that is also ONE of the reasons why there are going to be new WR's because of the additional weight of FZR + XRR (+TBO).

[geeman1]

so when i run a server just with XRR available, there is no need for balancing them down with 50kg because everyone is running the same car.It is probably easier to apply it always. No need to make complex functions to determine if there are other cars available. Imo it doesn't even matter much, so what if the cars are little slower, but it's the same for everyone. All I am saying it would be too much work for no gain to have the handicaps disabled when there is only one car available.

[Dajmin]

It would also make lap records completely insane. It means LFSW would need to keep track of PBs with every possible handicap, which is just silly.

Also, depending on the fix and the track, your driving style might need to change, your braking and shifting points move. A royal pain and no mistake.

It would make much more sense to have a permanent fix which would make life easier for everyone, both programmers and drivers.

So are the global handicap settings close to getting agreed on then?

[Mauni]

As said in first post, GTR class probably needs some adjustments. Those constraints were not tested. You'll probably see more even GTR class when patch X is out.

[XCNuse]

The XRR can go much further on fuel without losing out on lap times. In endurance series the FZR will simply not be a contender anymore with this weight.
Yes but keep in mind that turbos do indeed improve fuel economy. (By a significant amount I may add.)

[Vain]

If the FZR was indeed hit too hard by the penalties I'd like to suggest to remove some weight (please suggest!) from it's weight penalty and increase it's fuel capacity by a certain amount (please suggest!).
The ideal situation would be where the FZR can take 0.1 or 0.2 a lap from the XRR with an empty tank, but looses 0.1 to 0.2 with a full tank.
There is quite some GTR practice going on. I didn't read the times, but I guess with those numbers you could make a good picture of the current empty-tank performance of the cars.

Vain

[Tweaker]

I think its weight is just fine. Nobody has realy put it to the full test though.

Driving the XRR is still pretty much the same as it always has been, so don't complain about tires or fuel. The FXR is still the same too, but should at least be able to keep up only a slight bit now... though the tires are still crap.

The FZR is FINE with +100kg, and possibly very even with the two other cars. All you need to do is sort out your setup a tiny bit, and then move the wieght ballast to the front or rear depending on how you've set the car up. I've found that the weight need to go towards the front a slight bit, and then the car feels fine. You also have to realize that you need to lower the downforce a few clicks on both ends because of the added weight... or else you just have too much drag added on.

The FZR is still very competitive, and +100kg is just enough to figure out if it is too little or too much. I've done some long endurance stints with a MoE setup I have, and it is the same in terms of tire wear and fuel usage (could do same amount of laps)... just the times were slightly slower --- the way it should be.

[W1ldPort75]

@ Clownpaint , dito !! :shrug:

[Flotch]

I think its weight is just fine. Nobody has realy put it to the full test though.

Driving the XRR is still pretty much the same as it always has been, so don't complain about tires or fuel. The FXR is still the same too, but should at least be able to keep up only a slight bit now... though the tires are still crap.

The FZR is FINE with +100kg, and possibly very even with the two other cars. All you need to do is sort out your setup a tiny bit, and then move the wieght ballast to the front or rear depending on how you've set the car up. I've found that the weight need to go towards the front a slight bit, and then the car feels fine. You also have to realize that you need to lower the downforce a few clicks on both ends because of the added weight... or else you just have too much drag added on.

The FZR is still very competitive, and +100kg is just enough to figure out if it is too little or too much. I've done some long endurance stints with a MoE setup I have, and it is the same in terms of tire wear and fuel usage (could do same amount of laps)... just the times were slightly slower --- the way it should be.
more weight => more downforce needed , so if +100Kg you put less downforce you will be very very slower.
adding so much weight seems a bit crazy for the fzr, and why, in a same class of race cars, the AWD would be the lightest :shrug: ?
I think the FZR should have a slight penalty on its hp, but not a weight penalty...
And xrr et fxr have the exactly same spec for their engine, wich seems not very appropriate like one is an in-line-4 and the other a flat-4...there is a way to compensate the slight disadvantage of the fxr with the torque band for example...

[hammer it]

For what its worth:

I've spent considerable time with the GTR class sets on oval. From what I have done, the XRR is only a few hundredths faster than the FZR so they are pretty close. The fXR on the other hand is 6 tenths or more slower per lap. Whether it should be or not is beside the point. It is.

Certainly more time can be shaved somewhere... but it looks to me like im down close to the best I can find in W21.

[Flotch]

top speed is not affected a lot by the weight or the grip of the tires :shrug: , so the oval is clearly a bad idea to tell wich car is the fastest or not (in most cases). It is better to take a track like Kyoto GP long, wich will tell you exactly wich car is the best for medium/fast track :nod: , and then you can find what is the tune to make the GTR cars competitive (ie : FZR could still the fastest, but with a XRR only 3-4 tenths slower and faster by some tenths than the FXR ; like this you should see the FXR faster on small tracks, and XRR competitive on the fast aston tracks...)

[joshdifabio]

I really hope the weight of the FZR isn't increased by the current 100kg in Patch X. At the moment, it seems to be disadvantaged in comparison to the XRR in almost every respect.

[hammer it]

top speed is not affected a lot by the weight or the grip of the tires :shrug: , so the oval is clearly a bad idea to tell wich car is the fastest or not (in most cases). It is better to take a track like Kyoto GP long, wich will tell you exactly wich car is the best for medium/fast track :nod: , and then you can find what is the tune to make the GTR cars competitive (ie : FZR could still the fastest, but with a XRR only 3-4 tenths slower and faster by some tenths than the FXR ; like this you should see the FXR faster on small tracks, and XRR competitive on the fast aston tracks...)

So by that way of thinking if I add 10,000 pounds to my XRR, or run my tires with 3 pounds in them, it will still go around the oval just as fast as it does now. I think not. Weight does matter and so do tires.

[AndroidXP]

Sorry, but the oval is obviously one of the least ideal places to test car balance, shortly followed by dragstrip, autocross area, BL carpark and skidpad. We don't go to rallyX courses to balance the TBO class either, do we? The goal is to balance them on average for all regular road tracks, or at least for the most driven ones. The oval is a far too specialised environment to draw any general conclusions from balance testing made there.

[Flotch]

So by that way of thinking if I add 10,000 pounds to my XRR, or run my tires with 3 pounds in them, it will still go around the oval just as fast as it does now. I think not. Weight does matter and so do tires.
when I said : "not affected a lot", it means what it says :nod: , and we are talking about less than 10% of the weight (I think it is still too much, and not a good idea) and few centimeters wider tires beetween them...
i.e. : ufr and xfr are quite well balanced (with actual physics) on the LFS tracks, while if you only see the oval, there is no possible comparison beetween them, xfr's top seed been quite better, and lowering it to make them as competitive there would clearly kill the class at the advantage of the ufr.

[bLaCk VaMpIrE]

what i dont understand is, why when only one GTR or TBO car is allowed, that there are those handicaps, too. maybe it would be sensefull only to activate these penalties, when there is more than one car allowed.

[geeman1]

what i dont understand is, why when only one GTR or TBO car is allowed, that there are those handicaps, too. maybe it would be sensefull only to activate these penalties, when there is more than one car allowed.http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=417040#post417040

[AndroidXP]

You should better get used to the current handicaps, as they will be removed as handicap and re-added as permanent car change as soon as patch Y comes around. That's the reason this thread is called "Temporary car balancing discussion", which also explains why implementing such code would be nonsense. ;)

[hammer it]

What I was trying to say initially is that the 2 gtr's are pretty matched and the FXR is slow in comparison - on the oval. Thats it.

Certainly there will be differences on every track. I wonder if a car handicap could be built into the track code so that when gtr's are run on oval, the FXR would have 20 more horsepower and when run on as1 the car that is disadvantaged there would have whatever was determined to make it close to the others.... see what I mean? Maybe we should just call it good enough and run what works for each of us. I mean, we could pick this thing apart forever and not come to an agreement....... Either that or introduce the COT class :)

[Nathan_French_14]

imo, if the RB4 had a slight power increase (about 2-3%), the XRT lost a little weight, and the FXO got a VERY slight power gain (1-2%) then i reckon the TBO group would be about even. BUt obviously, to get it even requires "trial and error". Hope this can get sorted though, the TBO and GTR group seem's like it has got worse, not better :(

Frenchy

[Vain]

TBO is about perfect now.
The RB4 is the best deal on tarmac tracks since it starts well, isn't too difficult to drive and does decent times, but the margins to TBO and FXO are really close. The FXO doesn't work properly in 5 minute races due to it's problems off the line, but once at race pace it's up there with the other cars. A FWD just won't win a 5-minute race. That's a drive-train issue.

I won't say much about GTR class though. I'm not good enough with it to make a statement.

Vain

[Shotglass]

Certainly there will be differences on every track. I wonder if a car handicap could be built into the track code so that when gtr's are run on oval, the FXR would have 20 more horsepower and when run on as1 the car that is disadvantaged there would have whatever was determined to make it close to the others.... see what I mean?

iirc scawen already posted that htis wont happen
the reason is simply that this would completely eliminate the point of having different cars in the first place

[hammer it]

iirc scawen already posted that htis wont happen
the reason is simply that this would completely eliminate the point of having different cars in the first place
Thats what this thread is all about though, balancing out the cars to make them more even. I agree, if they are all the same then we would only need one car.... let the differences be... thats ok with me!

[Shotglass]

Thats what this thread is all about though, balancing out the cars to make them more even. I agree, if they are all the same then we would only need one car.... let the differences be... thats ok with me!

no the point is to balance them in a way that theay are even _on average_ thus making every car competitive in a league environment _not_ to make them even on every single track

[srdsprinter]

Read through the thread but didn't see an answer, sorry if it is not applicable/appropriate to current thread.

Is the ability to penalize weight/power of a car temporary to the test patch?

Our team was floating the idea of implementing Reward Ballast in our upcoming team's series, and the idea of having mixed class GTR races (current and ~300hp) has been mentioned.

As for the current balancing, I agree that I would rather see a smaller weight pentalty with slight power modification than the current 100kg FZR weight. The car is still fast, it just feels sluggish with the weight. Keep the quickness of the FZR and modify the others.

In Racecar Engineering I was reading about the new British GT3 series. The 911 GT3 (whichever race version) was the baseline. All cars faster would be slowed, and slower cars could lose weight/add power. I think the pre-patched FZR should be the baseline...

Thanks,

Stu

[AndroidXP]

No, I think the handicap system itself will stay, so everybody will still be able to select a voluntary handicap. Even the global handicaps will probably stay activated, they will just be set to 0 for the time being.

[s1m0n]

Today I first tried W24 test patch and was stunned by the new car balancing.
I have small amount of experience, but... Maybe there is just a bit too much weight on FXO.
Let me put it this way:
Pre W17: FXO: 209HP/ton, RB4: 201HP/ton, XRT: 206HP/ton
With W24: FXO: 193HP/ton, RB4: 201HP/ton, XRT: 198HP/ton
And this does not include 3% air intake restriction on FXO!
RB4 is now the strongest car to drive!
I agree it is the easiest to drive and should be penalized for that, but this much? RB4 isn't that much heavier to drive, and now it has the best HP/ton ratio.
And also adding weight isn't the right way for balancing. With extra weight car uses more fuel, wears more tires, driver has to break earlier, acceleration is slower and overall handling is ruined. Putting thiner tires would do pretty much the same except fuel usage.
My thoughts: all cars should have pretty much the same HP/ton ration. Maybe 2HP difference but should be limited by another way than adding weight. XRT should be the strongest and with that adding that small advantage because it is the hardest to drive. RB4 should be in the middle and FXO should have smallest HP/ton ration because it is the easiest to drive. How to do that and not to use extra weight? Don't know. You say how...

[Flotch]

FWD have less power lost in transmission, so having a power to weight ratio lower than the other two is not a big drama (in theory).
But, as I already said it, I'm not a big fan of adding weight...especially if the new FXO (for the next incompatible patch) has narrower tires :shrug:

[AndroidXP]

Well, surely the weight handicap will be lowered once the narrower tyres are introduced, no? :scratchch

[geeman1]

Well, surely the weight handicap will be lowered once the narrower tyres are introduced, no? :scratchchYes and no. The temporary handicaps will be removed, but FXO will gain some permanent weight. After a while the handicaps will be re-added if needed.

[srdsprinter]

tried out the GTR's again. Is it just me or do the pentalty's make the FXR and XRR more fun to drive than the FZR? Regardless of speed, all my FZR setups just became less sharp even with tweaking them. I guess its just a matter of totally rethinking setups?

[Vain]

Think of it this way: With the penalties the FZR now handles with an empty tank as it did before with a full tank. Yes, of course it is a bit more clumsy, especially if your old setup's spring rates were calculated with the wrong sprung mass. I wonder where the added mass will be put in patch X. Either in the front, which will increase moment of inertia, or in the rear, which will worsen the front/rear weight distribution.

@TBO:
Currently it's a bit difficult to see the balancing of the TBO class since the XRT is so popular in W9+. The FXO is the least popular car now. Only seldomly someone chooses it who can really drive it on the limit. That's why the FXO seldomly scores the quickest laptimes though it happens once in a while.
Right now I can't see any car as too superior or too inferior. After patch X has settled and we know the new WR times we can perhaps change the hp figures by one or two for patch Y.

Vain

[zipper (cze)]

With extra weight car uses more fuel, wears more tires, driver has to break earlier, acceleration is slower and overall handling is ruined.

In other way, narrower tires do actually the same - you have to break earlier, accleration is slower too and handling through the cornes is worse too. That's all due to less grip.

But yes, I with this balast and intake restriction, FXO has just amazingly slow starts... But in long race, with good driver, it could compete with RB4 and XRT.

[PwrSlave]

@TBO:
Currently it's a bit difficult to see the balancing of the TBO class since the XRT is so popular in W9+. The FXO is the least popular car now. Only seldomly someone chooses it who can really drive it on the limit. That's why the FXO seldomly scores the quickest laptimes though it happens once in a while.
Right now I can't see any car as too superior or too inferior. After patch X has settled and we know the new WR times we can perhaps change the hp figures by one or two for patch Y.

Vain

Well imo you drive too much STCC (or whaeva its called now). There the xrt is the best couse fxo has its throtle blip a must have and such, it is just not fast enough. Even with the weight added, one can find great fun driving it, and not just overtake evryone at streight in lap1 as it used to be until now, it just needs some more work to get infront thats all. And balancing is what all wanted so there it is now. And i think it is just right.

[tristancliffe]

Why do people think narrower tyres will make the handling worse? It will lower outright grip, but most cars in real life are RUINED by the fitment of wider tyres in terms of handling.

MX-5/Miata - crap on wider tyres
Lancia Fulvia - crap on wider tyres
Reynard F3 car - crap on wider tyres (apparently)
Lamborghini Diablo - crapper on wider tyres.

Please do not confuse handling and grip...

[joshdifabio]

Scawen, is there any chance that you might reduce the FZR's ballast by 20 kg or so before the 24 hour race? At the moment, it's using 50% more fuel per lap than the XRR, is slower and wears it's tyres more. After a lot of practice, the FZR teams will be hopelessly uncompetitive in the race.

[srdsprinter]

Scawen, is there any chance that you might reduce the FZR's ballast by 20 kg or so before the 24 hour race? At the moment, it's using 50% more fuel per lap than the XRR, is slower and wears it's tyres more. After a lot of practice, the FZR teams will be hopelessly uncompetitive in the race.
+1

[AndRand]

Im looking forward for sticker/subforum in the servers section to resolve these questions - with ideas/examples for combo balancing.


and one question - why not balance LRF also? at this moment LX6 is the winner at any combo so LRF is completely left for drifters with uncompetetive FZ50s and RAs

[srdsprinter]

Im looking forward for sticker/subforum in the servers section to resolve these questions - with ideas/examples of combo balancing.


and one question - why not balance LRF also? at this moment LX6 is the winner on any combo so LRF is completely left for drifters with uncompetetive FZ50s and RAs
RAC - Real car, can't really fudge the specs
FZ5 - 996 GT3 Specs, see above
LX6 - R400(but heavier)/westfield whatever could be tweaked.

Edit -> even though its 50 years old in design, just about any '7' with any power will be faster round a track than most all traditional sports cars.

[Vain]

LRF is perfectly balanced right now. Of course the FZ5 gets it's 1.4 tons a*s kicked by the LX6 around So City, but I pity the fool who drives down the Aston Gp straight in an LX6 and watches a FZ5 blow past with 50km/h more speed (yes, that'd be you, Hyperactive :tilt: ).
The LX6 edges slightly ahead around the sum of all LFS tracks as far as I can see, but really, LRF and STD are the best balanced classes right now.

Vain

[geeman1]

The LX6 edges slightly ahead around the sum of all LFS tracks as far as I can see, but really, LRF and STD are the best balanced classes right now.Imho they are not. RA and FZ5 are balanced pretty good. But the LX6 is faster on pretty much every track, including Aston GP.
RA is kind of tied to the real cars specs (on a side note which don't match the 02 specs or 05 specs currently). FZ5 and LX6 aren't tied to anything. LX6 is the one that should have something done, not sure what though.

EDIT LX6 could have a 1.3l I4 motorcycle engine with ~170hp, but then it wouldn't be LX6 anymore :p

[Bob Smith]

FZ5 is not a real car, though so can be altered a bit. More power would be nice. :D

[AndRand]

FZ50 - 265bhp/ton
RA - 311
LX6 - 358

but with different mass (braking) and max speed could be balanced for competetive racing

[Flotch]

FZ50 - 265bhp/ton
RA - 311
LX6 - 358

but with different mass (braking) and max speed could be balanced for competetive racing
without the driver in, those numbers mean nothing :nod:
The LX6 is still having a big advantage, but maybe with a new physics patch for the tires (very low pressure has too much advantages and not as much inconvenients) could balance a little more the class.
FZ50 seems to be a bit too quick compare to RAC, but :shrug: ...when the problems with the differential will be solved may be they could compete :tilt:

[Scawen]

Scawen, is there any chance that you might reduce the FZR's ballast by 20 kg or so before the 24 hour race? At the moment, it's using 50% more fuel per lap than the XRR, is slower and wears it's tyres more. After a lot of practice, the FZR teams will be hopelessly uncompetitive in the race.When is the 24 hour race?

I've done your request, I've taken it as a well researched value and I've made the ballast 80 kg, so you can start testing the new weight as soon as possible.

If the FZR becomes the overwhelming car of choice again now then we've gone too far.

[srdsprinter]

When is the 24 hour race?

I've done your request, I've taken it as a well researched value and I've made the ballast 80 kg, so you can start testing the new weight as soon as possible.

If the FZR becomes the overwhelming car of choice again now then we've gone too far.
The 26th is the 24 hour race... It should be pretty popular. 90 teams and hundreds of LFS drivers!

[joshdifabio]

When is the 24 hour race?

I've done your request, I've taken it as a well researched value and I've made the ballast 80 kg, so you can start testing the new weight as soon as possible.

If the FZR becomes the overwhelming car of choice again now then we've gone too far.

Ok great. We will be practicing most nights from now until the race on the 26th, and if a decent number of drivers turn up to the practice races throughout the next week, they should give a good indication of the balance of the class with the revised FZR handicap. The race should obviously provide an accurate idea of the competitiveness of the cars over a long distance too.

[N I K I]

yea great and Clownpaint Gaming changed car because of 100kg.... (from FZR to XRR) now it's 80kg and FZR is again the best :(
I think it should be 100kg for this event cuz lot of teams picked XRR or FXR not FZR because of 100kg, we can't change car now week before race.... After 24h race get it down to 80kg again, cuz FZR deserves to be fastest car :shrug:

edit: Maybe to give them 90kg, because with 80kg they are too fast and with 100kg too slow.
Scawen can you add 90kg to FZR?

[Vain]

yea great and Clownpaint Gaming changed car because of 100kg.... (from FZR to XRR) now it's 80kg and FZR is again the best :(
I think it should be 100kg for this event cuz lot of teams picked XRR or FXR not FZR because of 100kg, we can't change car now week before race.... After 24h race get it down to 80kg again, cuz FZR deserves to be fastest car :shrug:

edit: Maybe to give them 90kg, because with 80kg they are too fast and with 100kg too slow.
Scawen can you add 90kg to FZR?Remember that the FZR consumes a lot more fuel and needs to pit more often. You should be fine in the XRR.

By the way, I didn't expect Scawen to actually react to the 80kg request at all. I'm surprised, really. :tilt:

Vain

[N I K I]

50kg killes XRR front tires and XRR can stay out shorter then FZR... i'm not telling lies! Maybe if Scawen reduce it to 40kg it would be better.

XRR can do 20 laps
FZR can do 23 laps

I believe XRR could do 23 laps with to 40kg (i'm talking about R2 tires)

[N I K I]

I'm testing XRR with 40kg. I'm doing same lap time and i spent 2.4% fuel per lap like before. It's just now XRR doesn't wear tires crazy. We all know XRR should stay out longer then FZR. We all know XRR should be slower then FZR.

With 50kg to XRR and 80kg to FZR situation is next:
-FZR can stay out longer and do faster lap times

With 40kg to XRR and 80kg to FZR situation is next:
-FZR is faster but it can stay out just like XRR or 1-2 laps shorter

[Flotch]

what about fxr?

[ORION]

Remember that the FZR consumes a lot more fuel and needs to pit more often. You should be fine in the XRR.

In LFS you dont pit because of the fuel, you never even reach the capacity limit because the tyres dont last long enough. Actually all tyres are the same, the ones with the higher numbers just get hot slower.

+1 for 90kg


@Flotch:
For the 24h race, FXR and XRR seem to be very equal right now. The FZR is maybe 0.3 seconds slower.

And if the FZR can really do 3 laps more, its evel as its now i'd say (now = like in W24)

[N I K I]

They do same lap times like XRR (0.2sec slower maybe) and they can stay out longer then us too (3-5 laps longer). This really looks like XRR is worst car ATM :schwitz:.

[N I K I]

@Flotch:
For the 24h race, FXR and XRR seem to be very equal right now. The FZR is maybe 0.3 seconds slower.

And if the FZR can really do 3 laps more, its evel as its now i'd say (now = like in W24)

with 80kg FZR is 0.3 faster

[Scawen]

Right, I've now reduced the XRR handicap by 10 kg.

So it's :

FXO GTR - no handicap
XRR - 40 kg
FZR - 80 kg

By the sound of things, this will be a good balance. But we'll see - it does need testing on different tracks, and if you say car X is faster than car Y - please mention the track you tested on.

[N I K I]

Great Scawen, thank you

I'm going on-line to test how many laps can XRR do now, I let you know result

[N I K I]

ah damn it i got disconnected in lap 9. Ok here are impressions: Max tire temperature was 105C (108C before with 50kg) and i was driving a bit faster lap times with lot of fuel. I tried off line with low fuel and i do same lap times. I like new weight and i'm 100% sure XRR can do more laps now :thumb:

[joshdifabio]

I'm sorry, but I think this is a mistake. N I K I either your setup is crap, or you are being quite selfish with this request, because with 50kg the XRR can do at least 25 laps with R3 tyres, which is more than the FZR and looking at the quali times it was around 0.5s faster than the FZR.

And the low fuel consumption makes a huge difference even if no one will be running 100% fuel. The XRRs can start with 30% less fuel for a 25 lap stint than the FZR, this means a much lighter car for almost the whole stint.

I am actually trying to get a fair class, you are trying to give yourself an advantage for the race.

[joshdifabio]

50kg killes XRR front tires and XRR can stay out shorter then FZR... i'm not telling lies! Maybe if Scawen reduce it to 40kg it would be better.

XRR can do 20 laps
FZR can do 23 laps

I believe XRR could do 23 laps with to 40kg (i'm talking about R2 tires)

The FZR can only do 23 laps on R3 tyres! I'm sorry Scawen but this latest tweak is a joke. The XRR will still be faster on an empty tank, and the XRRs will still be able to run longer on less fuel. This guy is just trying to help himself.

Edit: I really can't understand this. The FZR _should_ be faster, because it is disadvantaged in every other way. Please note that niki was talking about doing 23 laps on R2 tyres in the XRR. At the moment it is difficult to complete 23 laps on R3 tyres in the FZR. On the same compound the XRR can go comfortably further, and with an average 15kg weight bonus from fuel alone over a long run compared to the FZR.

[Flotch]

why are you using R3??? afaik R2 are always better...

[N I K I]

R2 are always better and Team Inferno is doing 23 laps on R2 with FZR!

[joshdifabio]

why are you using R3??? afaik R2 are always better...

At KY3R the tyres just heat up incredibly quickly. Usually R2s are better, but they don't seem to be in this case. I'll give it a go a little later though and see if I can make them last. All the GTRs in the practice race last night were using R3s afaik.

The fact remains though, that the XRR is easier on the tyres, around the same speed as the FZR on an empty tank or slightly faster, and has a huge weight advantage over long runs. Maybe you could do some testing of the three cars though Flotch?

[Flotch]

I never drove a single lap at KY3R, so I do not think I can help :D , but I saw a setup from forbin for the BF1 at Westhill (the perfect combo to destroy the tires :thumbsup: ) using R2, so I'm sure R2 are the way for every cars (except those wich have R1 :razz: )...
And the last race I've done was with the previous physics (cooking tires) on Historic, and I remember that R2 was the best solution (for each GTR), so I guess now, R2 should still the best choice :nod: . If I remember right, Norbi has shared a race setup for the FZR at KY3 (setupfield), so you should have a very good base for the reverse (with R2!)

[srdsprinter]

Scawen, this post might be helpfull in showing the state of the balance of the GTR's before the FZR 20KG break...

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=421687#post421687

Its KY3R btw.

[joshdifabio]

This wont help i guess cause u need the same Person driving all three cars to see if one car is faster!

I'd say n1lyn is much better then S. Vollak in the FXR and Teemu Hirvonen. My opinion is to wait and see how the cars do in the race, cause i think the FXR will have a lot of problems in the race cause of FWD and TyreKilling :P

Well I'd say that in MoE / LFS GT qualifying sessions Teemu Hirvonen was faster than Nils on both occasions, despite having only just started driving the FZR. Also, Vollak seems to have done a lot of practice for this, and is a quick driver anyway, so I would say that you are wrong.

I do agree though that the only fair way to tell is for a fast driver to test all three cars. I personally think that the cars should be balanced for performance over a long distance though, not in 5 lap sprint races / hotlaps.

[ORION]

We will be using the old setting for the 24h race, which were present when the drivers have chosen their car. This is the only fair thing we can do, because otherwise everyone will say its not fair to change the settings afterwards. I dont want Scawen to make the decision who will win the race :)
So, people have chosen themselves.

FXR - 0kg
XRR - 50kg
FZR - 100kg

Actually, XRR and FXR are very equal with those settings.

[srdsprinter]

We will be using the old setting for the 24h race, which were present when the drivers have chosen their car. This is the only fair thing we can do, because otherwise everyone will say its not fair to change the settings afterwards. I dont want Scawen to make the decision who will win the race :)
So, people have chosen themselves.

FXR - 0kg
XRR - 50kg
FZR - 100kg

Actually, XRR and FXR are very equal with those settings.
That formula 0/50/100 was just determined to be UNFAIR. Now you want us all to use an UNFAIR forumla.... Please, you need to go with the most up-to-date FAIR ballast formula.

[srdsprinter]

Hi,

To anyone following this thread, I would ask you to take a quick look here:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=24623

The organizers of a certain upcoming race, through some diluted reasoning, have come up with an idea that the new GTR-class 0/40/80 kg community-wide pentalty weights are unfair. If you are involved in the race you should know this, as you will have to "volunteer" the earlier 0/50/100 kg pentalty weight back on.

Just take a gander and vote what you believe to be fair,

The community-accepted balancing,
or
The over-turned 0/50/100 kg balancing.

[falcon5]

Don't you understand the circumstances under which the admins of the 24h race decided to use 0/50/100?

1. The admins decided to go with the testpatches because the allow more cars and have a better balance in the GTR and TBO classes.

2. They made everybody choose their car _BEFORE_ the qualifying. The qualifying was held under 0/50/100. So the teams chose their car with those weights in mind.

3. It would be unfair to alter the weight in the race because some people maybe would have chosen another car under those circumstances. Quite an easy formula: ONE event - ONE weight management.

I hope this helps to understand.

[srdsprinter]

Wow, Scawen makes up an abstract, untested number, admits that it will need tweaking, people researched, Scawen changed the numbers, and you still proceed to act like you are in the right.

You all saw that the FZR and XRR were over-penalized, and you thought to yourselves, "We can take advantage of this," instead of helping the LFS developement.

Now that the rest of the community has shared what you already know, you are refusing to update to community standards for fairness.

Sad.

[Shotglass]

oh for crying out loud you chose a car with the old penalties in mind no go by what youve decided and drive that car

with the change theyd have to start over give everyone another chance to switch cars run another qualy after which someone will show up in this thread agaion to ask for a change in balancing and the whole thing starts over
at this rate the race wouldnt ever even start

[srdsprinter]

Gl & Hf

[KeiichiRX7]

weakest.... excuse... ever...

And with that, I am done here.

Whiniest post ever. It's best to say "The rules for this even have not changed even though the patch has changed"

the governing body of the event you've signed up for has made a decision, get the hell over it

[AndRand]

sorry to confuse things a bit but intention is to make them clear. I know you guys would like to have cars balanced for 24race but the testing there is irrelevant.
I M H O classes should be balanced for ca10mins races, as they are most popular for newcomers and medium racers while purpose of balancing is to keep servers busy when with multiple choice of cars, right? :shrug: Every event organiser will be able to do tests for himself and will be able to show results here.


btw: it looks like challenge for Eric to make new concept cars - now the need for testing balance for a new car in a class is minimum, so if there is another car layout possible (drive, engine placement - handling in general) - no barriers for new model to create. :nod: there could be problem with servers' occupation when there is too many classes but not when there are multiple cars classes.

[Campos_MIC]

What about the TBO class?

I drive in a brazilian league LFSBR (www.lfsbr.com (http://www.lfsbr.com)) and we now have a XRT and RB4 championship.

I am in first on the championship using the XRT. The RB4 is a lot slow on all the tracks. And that happens because their tires get hotter easier than the XRT.

So I think that the XRT should have at least 35kg.

[csurdongulos]

What about the TBO class?

I drive in a brazilian league LFSBR (www.lfsbr.com (http://www.lfsbr.com)) and we now have a XRT and RB4 championship.

I am in first on the championship using the XRT. The RB4 is a lot slow on all the tracks. And that happens because their tires get hotter easier than the XRT.

So I think that the XRT should have at least 35kg.

what type of tracks do you use? RB4 is quicker on shorter, twistier tracks, XRT on longer tracks, where the top speed counts. that's how it should be.

edit: and the RB4 should eat the tyres as it is a 4WD.

[zockmachine]

i think, all in all, the xrr is a little bit too fast now. I think FZR and FXR are on one level now, but the XRR might be a little bit too fast. (was already a little faster than FXR with 50kg) :scratchch so maybe 0/55/80 would maybe be an option. we'll see :tilt:

[Flotch]

i think, all in all, the xrr is a little bit too fast now. I think FZR and FXR are on one level now, but the XRR might be a little bit too fast. (was already a little faster than FXR with 50kg) :scratchch so maybe 0/55/80 would maybe be an option. we'll see :tilt:
where it is quicker? on FE or SO or the slow AS tracks? Slowing down it too much by adding weight is not going to be a good idea, and btw, I repeat myself about the logic of this thing : why is the FXR going to be the lightest car of the class?? :scratchch

[Breizh]

Fighting and whining not only fails to advance a solution, it worsens the problem in a number of ways, one of them turning off Scawen's enthusiasm.

I would say this is no different than other problems of its kind, in that you cannot safely decide a formula from such a reduced (just one person, in some people's minds) sample/population.
People who concerned enough with the race could improvise a quick field testing with the available resources to inform them with the info to make the best decision before the 26th. Devising this data gathering would be more productive than arguing who forum-whines best.

There could be (in its final form) a few separate handicap formulas adapted to short, medium, or long (and/or any other sort of race affected I'm not thinking of) races, that (for example) a server admin could choose from, or that the server could retrieve from the master server after the latter has recognized from said server's car/track/length settings which formula applies.

[Jamexing]

edit: and the RB4 should eat the tyres as it is a 4WD.

RWD cars with decent power are supposed to eat rear tires and FWD are suppose to eat fronts fast. With 4WD, it depends on torque bias and and overall balance. With power shared among 4 wheels, how could it magically eat tires faster? Which tire is better off, one transmitting half of 240+hp or one transmitting a quarter of it? As power goes up, 4WD actually increases tire change intervals by overloading tires less under power.

4WD does NOT magically eat tires faster than other drivetrains. It's suppoesed to save tires and extend tire change intervals if well set up and driven to provide even wear. Unless of course yo resort to 4 wheel drifts.

[csurdongulos]

4WD does NOT magically eat tires faster than other drivetrains. It's suppoesed to save tires and extend tire change intervals if well set up and driven to provide even wear. Unless of course yo resort to 4 wheel drifts.

my point is, the rb4 is fast if driven on the limit, which means braking late, accelerating early. the rb4 is always driven more aggresively than the fxo or the xrt. it should overheat and eat the tyres, as it does currently.

[Vain]

Fighting and whining not only fails to advance a solution, it worsens the problem in a number of ways, one of them turning off Scawen's enthusiasm.Actually the way the discussion went nicely shows that there isn't a specific direction. Before the change *everyone* said that the FZR and FXO are overpowered. Now there isn't such a general opinion. If that's the case then that is an indication of a good balancing.

The more people disagree and the more they throw mud at each other for different opinions the more even the balance must be.

Vain

[duke_toaster]

I appreciate that there will be a 24h race, but does all the balancing have to be based on KY3R :shrug:

Remember that what wins on one track might suck on another. If they are even at KY3R, they might be totally unbalanced at (say) South City. If flying laps on all tracks were added together all 3 cars should be roughly the same. But different cars have different advantages on different circuits.

It would probably need some coding, but one way for longer races to balance the cars is to change the fuel tank sizes. In ALMS, LMES and the 24 itself they do tweak fuel tank sizes for balancing different fuels. Just a thought ...

[srdsprinter]

I appreciate that there will be a 24h race, but does all the balancing have to be based on KY3R :shrug:

Remember that what wins on one track might suck on another. If they are even at KY3R, they might be totally unbalanced at (say) South City. If flying laps on all tracks were added together all 3 cars should be roughly the same. But different cars have different advantages on different circuits.

It would probably need some coding, but one way for longer races to balance the cars is to change the fuel tank sizes. In ALMS, LMES and the 24 itself they do tweak fuel tank sizes for balancing different fuels. Just a thought ...
Agreed with the first part, however it would appear at least, that a major part of the GTR class balance testing has taken place in preperation for the 24hr race (~45 cars, 150+ drivers). You lost me with the fuel tank stuff, but thats a different story.

If I took a guess, it would seem that KY3R is a higher speed course, and that the weight pentalties would cause more trouble for the FZR at places like South City (accel and decel slower, as well as the increase tire wear). Of course, this remains to be seen. Once this event is run, people might have a better idea of how the balance works for KY3R, but I agree testing will need to be done at other types of tracks as well.

[Breizh]

IMO: Arguing things down to the very bottom of the matter, yes - slinging mud, no.
But yeah, whatever gets it done.

[duke_toaster]

You lost me with the fuel tank stuff, but thats a different story.

To kneecap the Audis they made them fit a smaller fuel tank. That way, it had to make as many pit stops as the other cars or so.

[srdsprinter]

To kneecap the Audis they made them fit a smaller fuel tank. That way, it had to make as many pit stops as the other cars or so.
IIRC it was only against the diesels, bc they got so much better mileage. I don't see how that could really work for the GTR's as its all the same class, but an interesting consideration.


I wish there were an easy way to balance the GTRs without having to weigh down the FZR. Was there any testing done to see if maybe -25 to 50(?) hp could be equivelant to the 80kg pentalty?

A HP reduction would be a more effective long term solution to balance the class than the current weight. FZR's burn tires and fuel now at such a high rate, and the added weight has really made the car less lively. Reduced power could maintain the balance of the class, but help the FZR remain competitive in terms of handling and fuel/tire consumption.

[Jamexing]

my point is, the rb4 is fast if driven on the limit, which means braking late, accelerating early. the rb4 is always driven more aggresively than the fxo or the xrt. it should overheat and eat the tyres, as it does currently.

True, aggressive driving is necessary to compensate for the unbeatable FXO syndrome somewhat. If well setup and driven, it should wear all 4 tires nice and evenly. :)

[Campos_MIC]

True, aggressive driving is necessary to compensate for the unbeatable FXO syndrome somewhat. If well setup and driven, it should wear all 4 tires nice and evenly. :)

I agree with you.

I dont understand why the RB4 eat more the tires.

[Flotch]

as an awd you have to accelerate very soon to be performant, so you actually push the car very hard into corners, and slide more than with the 2wd to be fast. Add to this the car is slightly heavier, with the actual physics you have to use lots of camber to be competitive, and the result is there : you kill the tires :shrug:

[Fischfix]

I appreciate that there will be a 24h race, but does all the balancing have to be based on KY3R :shrug:

Remember that what wins on one track might suck on another. If they are even at KY3R, they might be totally unbalanced at (say) South City. If flying laps on all tracks were added together all 3 cars should be roughly the same. But different cars have different advantages on different circuits.
...


That is exactly what i said in one of my first posts to this topic. you can't level them out on all tracks and even on one track with different race-length.

[DEVIL 007]

There should be obviously made balancing based also on the number of laps/lenght of the race.So lets say for example it will be different for 5 laps race and for longer lap/lenght races.

[Jakg]

Not sure if this has already been posted, but imo the TBO balancing is still wrong - last night i was on SO Town in the TBO's, i was in an FXO chasing down an XRT - on the last turn he drifted wide and i got on the power neatly, pulling out a very good exit and gained on him - however because of the FXO's weight and power disadvantage he just pulled away effortlessly - surely the FXO would be slower with thinner tyres, but yet be able to keep up with an XRT (kinda) in a straight line

[Jamexing]

as an awd you have to accelerate very soon to be performant, so you actually push the car very hard into corners, and slide more than with the 2wd to be fast. Add to this the car is slightly heavier, with the actual physics you have to use lots of camber to be competitive, and the result is there : you kill the tires :shrug:

Very true, especially when trying to get WR. Compared to other TBO cars it is relatively underpowered, undertorqued and more importantly, VERY poorly suited powerband. Not to mention vastly undertired compared to the unbeatable FXO (Well, no other TBO car come close to it) . More weight than the FXO AND significantly LESS tire? No wonder it eats them fast. By the looks of things, it reminds me of the 1st thread I had here (RB4 related). I remember saying that the devs tried too hard and ended up overcompensating for FWD deficits, ending up with this unbeatable FXO problem.

If the RB4 was given the FXO's tires (a much more fair comparison) things would be a LOT different.

Well, at least you get to enjoy driving all 4 wheels off.

[srdsprinter]

Has adding a windshield graphic of the current ballast been considered? This on the front/back could be an easy way for everybody to see what each car is running during the race.
http://www.championracing.net/Audi_RS6/archive/RS6_2003/pics/RS6Essen_01.jpg

[Tweaker]

Doubt that has been considered for something on the car, but you can see each car's handicaps in the F11 display. Which is good enough for now.

AFAIK, if we were to get any stuff added for decorating the windows, it'd be country flags and room for a longer name.

[windmouse]

In my opinion XRR should get only 30kg of ballast instead of 40kg because it's a little bit slower than both FZR and FXR with 40kg and this fine adjustment would surely move us nearer to a kind of "equilibrium" within GTR class.

[Black Goblin]

In my opinion the GTR ballancing is unacceptable !

The higher weight of the FZR and the XRR increases the tyre wear and the tyre temperature too mutch.

My suggestion: keep all the GTRs at 1100kp and rule the ballancing with the engine power.

Example:
FXR = 490hp / 1100kp (default)
XRR = 480hp / 1100kp
FZR = 475hp / 1100kp

Its really no fun to drive a GTR with the ballancing as its now.

[Fischfix]

i still don't see any use in balancing the 3 GTRs. if they are all the same speed, and this is what most of the people here talk about, then everyone will drive the FXR just because it is 4WD and the easiest to handle. why not just letting them be as they are now and the league admins can define how they want to restrict certain cars. the track selection and length of a league will tell what car should be restricted in what matter to make it equal. a general equalization will result in a &quot;body-kit&quot; swap thing between the XRR and FZR. so you just choose one of those two cars which looks better to you. but then the use of two different cars is gone. its only body-kits then. every car should have an advantage on certain tracks/race-length. what i would improve to these cars is tire wear. they all use MUCH too less tires imo.

[AndroidXP]

Yes, just leave it like it was beforehand, so the FZR owns everything and the FXR sucks everywhere. :rolleyes:

Class balancing should, can and does not make the GTR class "equal". The purpose of it is to make sure the different cars actually have an advantage on different tracks, instead of the FZR being faster everywhere.

[srdsprinter]

In my opinion the GTR ballancing is unacceptable !

The higher weight of the FZR and the XRR increases the tyre wear and the tyre temperature too mutch.

My suggestion: keep all the GTRs at 1100kp and rule the ballancing with the engine power.

Example:
FXR = 490hp / 1100kp (default)
XRR = 480hp / 1100kp
FZR = 475hp / 1100kp

Its really no fun to drive a GTR with the ballancing as its now.
+1 to power restrictions (or power/weight combo) vs solely weight pentalties.

From what I've done (little), it seems maybe a small power reduction of FZR/XRR, combine with maybe 30kg FZR would make even racing, but wouldn't make the FZR so sluggish.

[Shotglass]

in case you guys havent noticed the fzr was more than competitive in the 24h race which is what gtr racing is about

[Bob Smith]

In my opinion the GTR ballancing is unacceptable !

The higher weight of the FZR and the XRR increases the tyre wear and the tyre temperature too mutch.
You,re telling me that adding just 40kg is greatly increasinc tyre scrub? Get real. If it's really causing a problem, increase tyre pressures a little. Nobody said you wouldn't have to alter your sets to coep with the changes.

Its really no fun to drive a GTR with the ballancing as its now.
Even if that were true, it was no fun before getting owned by FZR drivers. So it's not a step backwards.

[duke_toaster]

+1 to power restrictions (or power/weight combo) vs solely weight pentalties.

From what I've done (little), it seems maybe a small power reduction of FZR/XRR, combine with maybe 30kg FZR would make even racing, but wouldn't make the FZR so sluggish.

Power restrictions would be a more sensible idea, but 30kg would need to be taken out the FXR as it is 20kg heavier than the others.

[joshdifabio]

in case you guys havent noticed the fzr was more than competitive in the 24h race which is what gtr racing is about

I'm not sure, most of the FZRs that were near the front were there because they had few disco's and insta-pits compared to some of the other teams. I do think the XRR should have been a lot more competitive too, teams didn't really make the most of it's ability to do longer stints.

[Shotglass]

I'm not sure, most of the FZRs that were near the front were there because they had few disco's and insta-pits compared to some of the other teams. I do think the XRR should have been a lot more competitive too, teams didn't really make the most of it's ability to do longer stints.

hm im not sure if i interpret the tracker data correct (if i do the only way to tell if any of that happened is looking at how many laps were driven prior to a pitstop) and judging by that you guys seem to have had a whole lot more discos and instapits than the zt winner

[joshdifabio]

hm im not sure if i interpret the tracker data correct (if i do the only way to tell if any of that happened is looking at how many laps were driven prior to a pitstop) and judging by that you guys seem to have had a whole lot more discos and instapits than the zt winner

No, we just had one disconnect, and I broke the suspension once and drove back to the pits (no instapit). We were one of the few teams that did a lot of practice for this event though, look at the other FZR teams up there, very few problems. Inferno 2 had 0 disconnects. Also bear in mind that there were only a handful of XRR teams.

Also, look at the length of SK's stints at the start of the race, 26 laps. The XRRs could have driven longer stints than the FZRs quite easily.

And I think it's rather definite that, at KY3R at least, the FZR was the slowest over 1 lap. I think at the moment, because of it's easy handling, the FXR is the best car, but at least the XRR has the advantage of longer stints if the setup is good.

Edit: There is the disadvantage with the XRR that it rolls over easily, I'm not sure how significant that is though.

[Shotglass]

No, we just had one disconnect, and I broke the suspension once and drove back to the pits (no instapit).

hm k then looked to me like you had a whole bunch of very short stints which i took as an indication of instapit or disco

And I think it's rather definite that, at KY3R at least, the FZR was the slowest over 1 lap. I think at the moment, because of it's easy handling, the FXR is the best car, but at least the XRR has the advantage of longer stints if the setup is good.

either way the impresion i get from these results is that for endunrance racing at least at ky3r the class is much more blanaced than it was before and that there is no totally dominant car in that class right now
so whichever adjustments need to be made to nail it they have to be subtle

Edit: There is the disadvantage with the XRR that it rolls over easily, I'm not sure how significant that is though.

at the level of skill thats required to compete for the podium in endu racing i suppose the answer is 'not very'

[srdsprinter]

Im not sure how important this might be. But remember this event is four years old now, some FZR teams have had setups refined for KY3R for years now (with tweaks for 100kg), while people who switched might have never driven FXR/XRR and had to create a setup from scratch.

[Shotglass]

Im not sure how important this might be. But remember this event is four years old now, some FZR teams have had setups refined for KY3R for years now (with tweaks for 100kg), while people who switched might have never driven FXR/XRR and had to create a setup from scratch.

wasnt the xrr the winning car in the first moe season ? at least ptm and sk should have a lot of experience with making the xrr fast over a longer distance

[joshdifabio]

hm k then looked to me like you had a whole bunch of very short stints which i took as an indication of instapit or disco

Yeah, I forgot to explain this :). The tracker went down a few times, so lots of the stints were only partially recorded. If you look at the bottom of our extended statistics, there are 58 laps which have no lap-times associated with them. These were part of the stints which appear to be very short.

[srdsprinter]

Andreas, it was just something i was wondering, please calm down. i made no claim it was fact.

It seemed that there were more % of FXR's than I could remember seeing in any GTR race. Again, i'm not claiming to know the car's usage percentage.

My current thought is 0/40/80 will be a good balance, as the FXR appeared very forgiving to bad driving habbits. KY3R has lots of curves than have no exit curbs. The FXR's were able to regularly and (apparently) easily push over the edge onto the grass without loosing speed. While possible in the XRR and FZR, putting 1 or 2 tires onto the grass exiting a turn was a much more dangerous thing to do.

Making the XRR and FZR 10/20 kg lighter (the current 0/40/80 balance) will make them a little quicker, but the FXR can be driven over the edge more easily.

[duke_toaster]

My cousin give me an idea. We're able to move with ballast forward and backward, but not to left or to right. I think this would be good, because we will be able to move with ballast to any place in car and make better setups for handicaped cars. What do you say?

IMO if anything there should be no choice on where to put your ballast, it can be used to cause the FZR less issues by countering it's massively bad weight distribution.

[Crazy Harry]

My cousin give me an idea. We're able to move with ballast forward and backward, but not to left or to right. I think this would be good, because we will be able to move with ballast to any place in car and make better setups for handicaped cars. What do you say?


Great idea. Like most FM drivers I have most to do on the oval and a left/right balance would be cool! Driving on the left/wrong (hrhr) side of the car makes a significant difference on oval, too.

[Jamexing]

IMO if anything there should be no choice on where to put your ballast, it can be used to cause the FZR less issues by countering it's massively bad weight distribution.

What a load of absolute garbage! FZR has "bad" weight distribution? You've got to be kidding me!

No other car in the GTR class has a better match of aero center of pressure and center of gravity than the FZR, so what on earth are you talking about? Oh wait, you don't.

[srdsprinter]

What a load of absolute garbage! FZR has "bad" weight distribution? You've got to be kidding me!

No other car in the GTR class has a better match of aero center of pressure and center of gravity than the FZR, so what on earth are you talking about? Oh wait, you don't.
calm down. He's refering to the F/R weight bias.

IRL, 911's are known punish mistakes like sudden mid-corner braking, not braking in a straight line, etc, with sudden snap uncorectable oversteer. For the most part, this isn't seen in the FZR. With a decent setup in LFS, you can drive the FZR with (mostly) disregard to its engine location.

[Jamexing]

calm down. He's refering to the F/R weight bias.

IRL, 911's are known punish mistakes like sudden mid-corner braking, not braking in a straight line, etc, with sudden snap uncorectable oversteer. For the most part, this isn't seen in the FZR. With a decent setup in LFS, you can drive the FZR with (mostly) disregard to its engine location.

True, the unforgiving nature R/R does show itself really well especially in the non GTR version of the FZ series. The same could be said for the FZR at speeds low enough to make aero downforce relatively insignificant.

But since the FZR has the benefit of WIDE rear slicks and moderately wide fronts to match, added with the fact that it's aero matches so well with its F/R weight distribution, has rendered the R/R flaws relatively insignificant whilst preserving all its wonderfully positive traits. In fact, this aero synergy alone makes it light years ahead of the other 2 GTRs that suffer from horribly mismatched aero, with the FXR being the most obvious and crippling example. A front heavy car with extremly REAR BIASED downforce?

If F/R downforce was much better matched for all 3 GTRs, there won't be such a huge need for weight and intake restriction to balance them. The fact that the FZR needs 80kg just to balance the class just goes to show how fundamentally superior its performance really is to the other 2 since its fundamental characteristics such as F/R downforce ratio and mass balance are just too well matched.

Look at it this way. If an FXR driver wants to match the overall grip of his car to the FZR, he would of course need very similar amounts of downforce since the 2 cars weigh similarly. To use the downforce properly, center of pressure must be closely matched to center of gravity. The FZR could easily achieve this whilst maintaining excellent overall L/D ratio. The FXR, on the other hand, magically possesses the same rear biased aero as the FZR with its VERY front biased mass distribution.

Though possible to achieve the same downforce overall as the FZR if the FZR was set on relatively low downforce, it still loses out since this can only be achieved with severely compromised overall L/D ratio as the front downforce is cranked REALLY high whilst the rear wing remains underworked. If the FZR was set up for maximum downforce, the other 2 cars would have no chance in hell of matching their amount of downforce and hence overall grip to it whilst still suffering from mismatched aero induced L/D inefficiencies. This is especially severe with the FXR. Everyone seems to blame its 4wd drivetrain efficiency losses as the main contributor to lower track performance, but this aero issue seems surprisingly neglected. Of course more 2 more differentials and more driveshafts and rotating parts do sap a bit of power, but that alone can't explain why the FZR needed so much ballast to keep things more reasonably fair. Even with 80kg of ballast in the FZR, the XRR still needed some reduction of ballast to keep up with it! Wow.

With the TBO class, realistic turbo and powerband modelling coupled with maybe some changes in tire sizes could easily bring much better balance. But with GTRs things aren't that simple. With aero still at this rudimentary stage, there's still a long way to go. I'm just glad that Scawen has wisely chosen to implement this quick, simple and effective handicap band aid solution so things won't just be one FZR display of absolute superiority and domination after another.

[windmouse]

well, I hate to repeat myself, but XRR is now really the slowest car of the pack and some fine tuning of the balancing system (like 5 or 10 kgs here and there) would certainly help

edit: I hadn't read Jamexings latest post and I absolutely agree with him

edit2: Sorry, my work with tenses needs serious improvements.

[MikeB]

edit: I haven't read Jamexings latest post and I absolutely agree with him

Now whats that supposed to mean? :really::shrug::shy:

[AndroidXP]

He probably means "hadn't".

[evilgeek]

i completely agree with Jamexing on the aero issues, and would like to reiterate his point about the handicaps being a temporary fix. i really don't understand how the rest of you can whine so much. weight and power handicaps alone will never make the balancing perfect, no matter how fine tuned they are, but they will make racing more interesting while we wait patiently for scawen to fix the problem properly (with better aero and tire physics).

and think about it... plenty of people drove the FXR despite the fact that it got routinely clobbered by the FZR, so why worry about getting the balancing exactly even? people will drive whatever suits their style, and if the cars are closer that's great. and if you think about it some more, you might realize that most of the whining is being done by people who don't want to give up the unfair advantage they have previously enjoyed. is that really good sportsmanship? i don't think so.

[noel_cr]

ei guys, which is the command for disable the handicap¿
We can't quit 80 kg mass on FZR :/, and the race is only FZR.

Thx!

[srdsprinter]

Well, since this has opened back up I will make a comment, regarding the GTR class.

The class is much more closely balanced, yet the consensus shows the XRR is still the slowest and least appealing to drive.

MaximUK has put together some solid information from the popular CD server in this thread:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=26451

Perhaps a 20kg break could make the XRR a more competitive and appealing choice to drivers. :shrug:

The FXR still is a little slower than the FZR, but it is a more appealing choice than ever, as seen by MaximUK's usage numbers. If the XRR was a little more appealing their would be more even distribution of the GTR class.

[Cue-Ball]

ei guys, which is the command for disable the handicap¿
We can't quit 80 kg mass on FZR :/, and the race is only FZR.There isn't one. If you want to race multiplayer with the FZR, you get the handicap.

[Vain]

Hello.
Since TBO and GTR seem bearable now I thought LRF should get some more attention. For that sake I summed up all LFSW WR-times and then calculated the "average LFS lap".
Over all 48 combos the cars score on average:
FZ5: 1:36.72
RAC: 1:36.61
LX6: 1:36.03
Note how the LX6 is on average 0.6 of a second quicker than the other two.

For those who want to see how those numbers came about and where each car has it's strenght here is the textfile that shows all WR's as of 25.6.07:- FZ5
BL 79.14+80.66+63.95+64.08 = 287.83
SO 49.03+49.75+53.35+54.65+40.95+41.35+107.02+109.02+ 87.20+88.18 = 680.50
FE 43.90+44.62+75.61+76.55+90.32+93.18+169.86+172.67+ 71.35+72.19+29.62+29.54 = 969.41
KY 44.98+45.06+113.97+114.77+160.33+163.19 = 642.30
WE 111.19+110.53 = 221.72
AS 55.24+55.69+68.00+68.75+118.14+119.65+167.12+168.8 7+191.92+193.68+184.52+185.25+131.97+131.80 = 1840.60
Sum: 4642.36
Avg: 96.72
- RAC
BL 80.15+81.41+63.46+63.58 = 288.60
SO 49.21+49.39+53.31+54.87+40.57+41.12+106.88+108.76+ 86.59+87.93 = 678.63
FE 43.72+44.38+75.52+77.20+90.39+93.47+169.31+172.57+ 70.91+71,99+29.55+29.26 = 968.27
KY 46.48+46.54+114.09+114.16+161.03+162.59 = 644.89
WE 111.27+111.15 = 222.42
AS 54.91+55.66+68.57+69.07+119.52+120.87+169.18+170.3 4+191.95+194.86+184.76+187.73+131.86+132.01 = 1851.29
Sum: 4654.13
Avg: 96.61
- LX6
BL 79.51+79.69+63.44+63.46 = 286.1
SO 48.33+48.76+52.89+53.63+40.27+40.57+105.43+107.14+ 85.99+86.64 = 669.65
FE 42.72+43.95+74.25+75.33+88.43+90.75+165.56+167.23+ 70.70+71.60+29.36+29.18 = 949.06
KY 47.87+47.85+113.77+114.58+159.73+161.25 = 645.05
WE 110.35+109.95 = 220.30
AS 53.77+54.59+68.45+68.58+120.31+120.57+168.68+169.8 9+191.29+193.54+184.59+185.61+129.23+130.20 = 1839.30
Sum: 4609.46
Avg: 96.03* Those are quite many numbers. I take no responsibility for typing-errors, though I checked everything twice.

Conclusion: The LX6 is superior to the other two in both absolute laptime and fuel usage. In a pitstop it has to stop almost only half as long as a FZ5 and carries fewer additional weight than a FZ5.
There are two possibilities. Either de-tune the LX6 by adding 20kg (*) to it, or speed up RAC and FZ5, which would require an incompatible patch and doesn't mix with the real stats of the RAC (though the current RAC doesn't fit its stats on www.raceabout.fi anyway). My personal suggestion would be to add 3% power (~7bhp) to the RAC and remove 3% (~40kg) weight from the FZ5. That needs testing though of course. 0.6 a lap is the target.

(*) Personally I think 20kg is a very conservative measure. The LX6 will propably still be quickest, but it's margin should decrease a lot since 20kg is significant relative to the car's absolute mass.

[Edit] (**) Alternatively a power reduction by ~5 bhp would also have a significant impact on the car.

Vain

[Shotglass]

There are two possibilities. Either de-tune the LX6 by adding 20kg (*) to it

absolutely _not_
the lx6 is supposed to be light so if anything add a restrictor

also one thing you havent taken into account is that the lx6 eats the fz5 round the twisty bits so in a race if youre able to drag an fz5 down the straight he wont stand a chance once you get to a corner
on most tracks the lx has a huge tactical advantage

[Bluebird B B]

hmm balancing a car class with totally different cars to be just as fast;
I think it will be the end of lfs especially if it is done by making faster cars heavier. Also it might just not be possible to balance cars to be just as fast and have totally different designs.

A race car with rear engine 3.6 6-in-line is simply a totally different to a race car with a 2 liter turbo charged engine in the front. Its just as in real world where some designs in le mans of gtr classes simply never win. Remember for some years nobody could beat the mclaren F1 or in a lower class the dodge vipers.

Instead of making the fzr heavier of even worse to drive, maybe its a better idea to make the xrr a bit more like the fzr. try to give it a 2.5 litre 5-cylinder turbo charged engine with less turbo-lag(less pressure from the turbo). Instead of the 2 liter with a very high pressure turbo, which has so much lag i can drink a cup of coffee while waiting for the power to come in.

Also the gtr cars are already rather slow for a gtr car, making any of them heavier or something like that is a very bad idea. Improve the cars a bit which are a bit too slow and accept for example that the rb4 and fxo cant be balanced to be competitive which each other. Just like the real world. It would be nice though if the xr gt weight would be reduced by about 20-40kg. That might make the fxo and the xrgt very well matched.

Anyway, my advise: Dont try to hard to balance the cars and if you do, only by making slower cars a little bit faster.

Since this is a performance discussion something a bit offtopic: the fo8 needs a bit more power 15-30hp for example, because there is not one track where the fo8 will need maximum front or rear downforce except for the few extreme short and small tracks. Causing the fo8 often to feel like underpowered. For comparision: gp2 cars have 600hp, a1gp cars have 550hp. 550-600hp=bad idea for fo8 though but something like 470-480hp would be perfect without any other changes.

Same for the fox, real world cars like the fox have in the real world 20-30 hp more horsepower. It would make the fox a lot more fun to drive in lfs, because the fox feels currently badly underpowered.

edit:
I noticed with newer testpatch fzr is heavier, now i understand why it was so hard to get into 1:42.xx on as national.
thinking here of quiting lfs.. There are more racesims in this world with proper gtr's.

[Sumi78]

hmm balancing a car class with totally different cars to be just as fast;
I think it will be the end of lfs especially if it is done by making faster cars heavier. Also it might just not be possible to balance cars to be just as fast and have totally different designs.

A race car with rear engine 3.6 6-in-line is simply a totally different to a race car with a 2 liter turbo charged engine in the front. Its just as in real world where some designs in le mans of gtr classes simply never win. Remember for some years nobody could beat the mclaren F1 or in a lower class the dodge vipers.

Instead of making the fzr heavier of even worse to drive, maybe its a better idea to make the xrr a bit more like the fzr. try to give it a 2.5 litre 5-cylinder turbo charged engine with less turbo-lag(less pressure from the turbo). Instead of the 2 liter with a very high pressure turbo, which has so much lag i can drink a cup of coffee while waiting for the power to come in.

Also the gtr cars are already rather slow for a gtr car, making any of them heavier or something like that is a very bad idea. Improve the cars a bit which are a bit too slow and accept for example that the rb4 and fxo cant be balanced to be competitive which each other. Just like the real world. It would be nice though if the xr gt weight would be reduced by about 20-40kg. That might make the fxo and the xrgt very well matched.

Anyway, my advise: Dont try to hard to balance the cars and if you do, only by making slower cars a little bit faster.

Since this is a performance discussion something a bit offtopic: the fo8 needs a bit more power 15-30hp for example, because there is not one track where the fo8 will need maximum front or rear downforce except for the few extreme short and small tracks. Causing the fo8 often to feel like underpowered. For comparision: gp2 cars have 600hp, a1gp cars have 550hp. 550-600hp=bad idea for fo8 though but something like 470-480hp would be perfect without any other changes.

Same for the fox, real world cars like the fox have in the real world 20-30 hp more horsepower. It would make the fox a lot more fun to drive in lfs, because the fox feels currently badly underpowered.

YEAH...more power on slower cars..no extra weights:thumbsup:

[LRB_Aly]

The FXO is too light for such a car (that Scawen said himself) and the tyres are to wide (but they can't be changed in a physics compatible patch) for such a car. So this car is getting more "realistic" performances.
For the weight: I used to have a similar car to the FXO (Opel Vectra A 2.0l) it's empty weight was 1250kg (FXO 1140 without penalties). Even if you say it's a Coupe so it's rather an Astra Coupe: the Astra Coupe also weighs more (almost 1200kg).
If making the sim more realistic means that sometimes some cars have to be slown down I'm totaly comfortable with that.

[Bean0]

The FXO is too light for such a car (that Scawen said himself) and the tyres are to wide (but they can't be changed in a physics compatible patch) for such a car. So this car is getting more "realistic" performances.
For the weight: I used to have a similar car to the FXO (Opel Vectra A 2.0l) it's empty weight was 1250kg (FXO 1140 without penalties). Even if you say it's a Coupe so it's rather an Astra Coupe: the Astra Coupe also weighs more (almost 1200kg).
If making the sim more realistic means that sometimes some cars have to be slown down I'm totaly comfortable with that.

I have always disagreed with the thing about the weight.

Instead of comparing the FXO to an Astra, if you compare to an Integra Type R (DC2) the weight is pretty similar.

How about giving us a high revving NA engine instead of a turbo ?

[M4ver1ck]

My idea to make the balance better:
XRR 25-30kg
FXR 0kg
FZR 0-40 + adjusted air restrictor
That would give the FZR the agility back and the air restrictor would make the speed of the FZR similar to the other GTRs .

What do you guys think about that?

(Sorry for my bad englisch...)

[Rooble]

YEAH...more power on slower cars..no extra weights:thumbsup:

You're only saying that cause you can only drive the FZR, and now it sucks :D


Its a shame really how the FZR is at the moment, its become the new FXR that no one touches. Its completely lost its zing, just feels like some bloated tank that just doesn't move.

Less weight on the FXR (so it don't eat tires as fast)
More power to the XRR (maybe do something about the lag)
Leave the FZR as is :D

[geeman1]

FZR 0-40 + adjusted air restrictor
That would give the FZR the agility back and the air restrictor would make the speed of the FZR similar to the other GTRs .
+1 for that.

[Primoz]

My idea to make the balance better:
XRR 25-30kg
FXR 0kg
FZR 0-40 + adjusted air restrictor
That would give the FZR the agility back and the air restrictor would make the speed of the FZR similar to the other GTRs .

What do you guys think about that?

(Sorry for my bad englisch...)

WAit, let me get this right. You took the slowest car from W (XRR), added the most weight and made it even slower. You took the fastest car and maybe added some weight and took down some HP. The FXR stays the same. Now please tell me, what did you do? Nothing. THe FXR would MAYBE be a bit closer to the FZR, but the XRR would be miles behind.

I have become an XRR driver (too many FXRs now) and it's a very nice car. Only a bit bitchey in 2nd and sometimes 3rd gear corners (AS National hairpins f.e.). If it has any weight added it would probably be a nice idea to move the weight a bit backwards.

[M4ver1ck]

XRR wasnt the slowest car with Patch W.
FXR was the slowest one.
The 25kg would make the XRR eat more tires and make it a little slower, nothing more.
Since the Patch X came out the FZR got a horrible drivability. The only thing that I want is to give the FZR its advantage in corners back. The HP reduce would make the GTRs balanced. Thats my opinion. Im a XRR driver too. I really love this car. But eg. on as6r there is no enemy to the XRR....


How would you make the balance of the GTRs better?

[Bluebird B B]

Can the balancing removed from all cars??

I now only drive the formula cars, because the fzr is simply very bad with the added weight

I really think tweaking/balancing should be done by adding just a little bit extra power to the slower cars. Adding weight kills the fun of the well designed cars, it makes then different, heavy, difficult to drive, killing the fun of lfs. Unskilled drivers in front with four wheel drives :Eyecrazy:... No more gtr racing for me :x

I could be the only one who dislikes the changes badly, correction hates them. I think a poll would be a very good idea :lovies:\

addon:
My idea to balance the gtr class:
fxr +20hp
xrr +10hp
fzr just as it was.

Fzr probably still the fasted car but also the most difficult to drive car, just as it should be.

[Mad Hornet]

Hello Everyone.

Does Anyone know if the GTR Ballancing is Final of will there be changes in the next Patch ?

[SabersKunk]

damnit, I subscribe to this forum and I thought there was a new test patch on the go.

Been waiting sooooo long......