Default Setups

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe this isn't the time or place. But I've been sitting on it for a while now. Please bear with me for a minute. I actually have a point. Or maybe it's a question.

I have, for a long time, had a problem with the physics. The single most frustrating thing being the RWDs spinning at turn in. Next, the mid corner spinning. Then the car loading up and not resonding to corrective input in a manner that represents real life. The old right foot just doesn't do what it should over the limit. I'm starting to wonder if it's more setup than physics. (Forget GUI/AUI/FUI for now, those are NOT a factor.)

I've recently been driving the LX6. I've tried no less than 20 setups, maybe even 30. All of them except one, dealt with the problem by making the rear of the car smushy by comparison to the front which was always too hard or mute. Thus, forcing the driving style to become heavily proactive. Then, when it went over, there was no getting it back. All of my LFS heros use really unrealistic LX6 setups that have major flaws. When I say unrealistic, I mean you wouldn't race 60 laps under pressure with much chance for success.

I have no problem learning the limits of a car and driving under them. But in real life it's about hanging out on the edge. I'm not so concerned with under the limit. I'm talking about how the cars act on and over the limit. LFS seemed illusive in that regard.

Real cars are much easier to handle at 9/10ths and 11/10ths. Especially racing breads. What I mean by that is, there is no wondering at 9/10ths whether or not the thing is going to stick. At 11/10ths there is always some inidcation of what the car is going to do, so one can muscle it back into shape. 10/10ths is another story altogether, but the race breads are certainly easier to deal with at 11/10ths. (Keep in mind I am not talking about fatal mistakes. I am talking about progressive slides or other reasonable situations that should fall to easily to hand.)

Why is this important? Because in racing situations we make mistakes. In LFS I frequently lose 0.5s where I should have only lost 0.1 because I'm flinging wheel and pedals trying to figure out what it wants.

One setup for the LX6 comes along and all of the sudden it handles like a real car. Throttle, brake, and steer inputs magically do what I expect. I would say it's a balanced car. No neutral throttle turn-in oversteer. No mid corner loss of grip, or at least, when it does, you can drive out of it. Throttle rotation is not only possible, it's effective and gleeful! No excessive understeer. The rear is solid and snappy. (Relative to the marque, anyway.) And I can gather the thing up when I step over the limit. Heck, I can dowright drive the thing sideways at racing speeds.

So... Why are the default setups like they are? Even the FO8 is ridiculously touchy at what should be reasonably grippy speeds. Is it physics or simply setup? Should a car that has 10mm to much ride height or 0.2 degrees negative camber be so evil? Is that how it is in real cars? I don't know, seriously. But I have a mid engine sports car that gets pretty weird if the rear alignment is out. Nonetheless, I don't hit things before I get a chance to visit the mechanic.

There are some really good setups out there. Why aren't they defaults? Wouldn't that give the beginner (meaning anyone who drives a certain marque for the first time) a better impression?

[Tweaker]

I think all the default setups are fairly good... but as with every simulation, I always see the default setups becoming obsolete. Faster setups and configurations that people make for each car become way more advanced and the time they spend on them is probably way more than how the default setups were made.

I don't know anyone who has a world record with the default setups. Maybe in the next big release/patch of S2 there could be better default setups. Some of the sets... I agree... are not the best.

All the custom setups we have now are from refinement and people are becoming way more acustomed to the physics. There are a few bugs that people can use (like the raised nose on race cars), but once those are all taken care of, setups will change once again. Happens all the time... and still the default ones are a base that many people work off of. But we all have our own preference -- some find the sets great, some know they aren't the best or fit their style.

[Hallen]

You make some good points.:nod: I think the Race_1 sets, especially for the LX, RA and FZ cars should be much more balanced then they are. It would give a much better impression of those cars to drivers trying them for the first time. Also, I personally think the brakes are generally set too high and too far forward. The basic sets provided with the game should not be "on-the-edge" max hotlap speed types of sets, but 60 lap tire saving consistent types of sets. Once the player gets good and consitent laps out of these sets, then they can start tweaking to get the car more to their liking for speed. I personally really enjoy tweaking sets, but I like to have something close to start with.

As far as the sliding goes, well, lets just say it has been dicusssed a lot. :schwitz:

It does seem that with the cars that have a rear weight bias, that the slides are harder to catch than they should be. This could mostly be the result of us not being about to physically feel the back end kick out at the beginning. Or, it could mostly be poor setups. I think both definitely have an effect. It could be the physics are a tad off... almost like the tires tend to stay sliding once they start sliding instead of wanting to regain grip after they start sliding.

But I think the main point of your post was that the setups provided with the game should be improved for stability and to provide a good base for learning. I would have to agree with that.

[Bob Smith]

I'd been meaning to create my own set of "default replacement sets" that would be easier to drive, but obviously not as fast as the setups I would use myself. I think the road going setups I created were generally well received.

Though I'd be very interested if you could post this amazing LX6 set you found.

[Messiah]

I think the Race_1 sets, especially for the LX, RA and FZ cars should be much more balanced then they are
Hm.. at least the LX6 race_1 setup is *VERY* stable for oval (boring) racing. My tweak was faster though, I think 0.5 secs because you could go faster through the turns and come out faster. But it was also more challenging to drive because it tended to oversteer. Anyway.. for normal tracks the race_1 is not that stable as in the oval, as well as the RAC and FZ5 setups, agreed :)

[Slartibartfast]

It does seem that with the cars that have a rear weight bias, that the slides are harder to catch than they should be. This could mostly be the result of us not being about to physically feel the back end kick out at the beginning. Or, it could mostly be poor setups. I think both definitely have an effect. It could be the physics are a tad off... almost like the tires tend to stay sliding once they start sliding instead of wanting to regain grip after they start sliding.
Yes. And that makes me wonder, if it's a mixture of both setups and physics, then wouldn't it be critical to get some *really* friendly sets on certain cars? I personally believe that LFS has all that is neccesary to *feel* the car. So the other two are highly suspect in my accessment.

Though I'd be very interested if you could post this amazing LX6 set you found.
BOB!

Where, oh where do I get those setups?!

One day I was at Fe Gold in LX6. This guy pops in and starts running around in an LX6 with a passenger. His laps did not look like any I had seen in LFS. His lines, the way he set up corners, the way the car drifted and oversteered. It looked real! Not stiff and hesitant like most LX6 laps. I asked him for the set, he gave, and explained, "It's one of those 'road going' ones you get at the forum."

Let me explain something about myself. I like to play with rear wheel drive. I drive at the limit daily. In the winter I do about 400 corners a day, wet or dry, or snowy, as quickly as I can because there is no traffic or side roads on my way to work. (I work 7,000 feet above where I live.) I race kart and stock sports car when I can. If there are a few things I love, it's loading up the front of the car with a tap on the brakes and letting the rear come around; using throttle to rotate a car that is on a tangentile trajectory; the ever so thrilling four wheel drift; trailing throttle oversteer; trailing lock oversteer by dumping a gear at turn-in; power on oversteer by dumping a gear with excessive revs that quickly mutates to comprehensive terminal understeer toward the shoulder of the road.... did I mention oversteer?

The road going LX6 set that you probably made is the most balanced beautiful piece of work I've seen. It drives like a real car, and when you goof, or panic, or just plain lose the plot... the extremities do what they do, and the car does what a real RWD car *should* do in response. I love hucking that thing at corners just to see what it will do. I *know* when it's stepping out, and I *know* when it's coming back, and I *know* when it aint coming back.

I've successfully lowered it and maintained about 80% of it's "seat of the pants" feel and controllability for racing. More where that came from would be a godsend.

Thank you.

[Bob Smith]

My road going setups can be found here: http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=150145

Note they are not really intended to be seriously raced with. The biggest difference betweent them and normal setups is they are SOFT. Softer suspension makes a car easier to control, so the uber hard setups most people run doesn't help that it is tricky to drive in LFS at the best of times.

I'll have a go at making those beginner setups tomorrow, hopefully I can retain most of the driveability while making them quicker around the track.

[Slartibartfast]

My extraction of your road going LX6 is doing very consistent 1.34s with 60% fuel at Fe Gold. Got a 1.33.32 in it. I'm sure many drivers could do much better. It's very stable and transmits it's intentions well. Balance is balance and your feel is what lead me to realise the LX6 was drivable. I simply tried to maintain ratios the whole way down.

I have one mistake in which I didn't match spring rate well. The car drives the whole way with the suspension bottomed out. Still handles like a dream. It drifts the whole way but you can aim it with ease.

Let me ask you this, if you don't mind sharing some of your knowledge publically. When I get the default LX6 in to a rear end pitch, it seems like the whole car tilts over the front, then I apply opposite lock, an amount that I'm guessing should be correct, I get no feedback, so I hold and hold and hold, then POW... the thing snaps back and I'm in the rail. I never see (feel) the grip coming on at the front until it's too late. (Of course, once it fails to respond I would assume I'm also flinging pedals and making the situation worse.)

So why does the super soft road going setup seem to have such excellent "readability"? I always correct the right amount. I always know when to lift or puch it and by how much. It's not only that it's slower as I've had that thing in some really violent, really sudden slides that I drive out of real nicely. Is it purely grip?

[Woz]

My extraction of your road going LX6 is doing very consistent 1.34s with 60% fuel at Fe Gold. Got a 1.33.32 in it. I'm sure many drivers could do much better. It's very stable and transmits it's intentions well. Balance is balance and your feel is what lead me to realise the LX6 was drivable. I simply tried to maintain ratios the whole way down.

I have one mistake in which I didn't match spring rate well. The car drives the whole way with the suspension bottomed out. Still handles like a dream. It drifts the whole way but you can aim it with ease.

Let me ask you this, if you don't mind sharing some of your knowledge publically. When I get the default LX6 in to a rear end pitch, it seems like the whole car tilts over the front, then I apply opposite lock, an amount that I'm guessing should be correct, I get no feedback, so I hold and hold and hold, then POW... the thing snaps back and I'm in the rail. I never see (feel) the grip coming on at the front until it's too late. (Of course, once it fails to respond I would assume I'm also flinging pedals and making the situation worse.)

So why does the super soft road going setup seem to have such excellent "readability"? I always correct the right amount. I always know when to lift or puch it and by how much. It's not only that it's slower as I've had that thing in some really violent, really sudden slides that I drive out of real nicely. Is it purely grip?


In general race setups are harder to drive because they have a certain level of instability built into them to make the car react to your control movements faster. A road setup is made so that most of the normal people that use a car as transport instead of people that drive cars are safe in them. The susspension is softer to deal with public roads, they have understeer behaviour etc.

The reason you can read the road setups in LFS better is that the car will roll and pitch more which gives you a better feel visually what your car is doing and how the weight is balanced. With a stiff setup you dont get so much visual information about the weight shifts.

IRL you feel the weight shifts through your whole body which lets you know exactly how the car is balanced and how your input is effecting that balance. This allows you to sit closer to the edge. In LFS you have sound, visualss and force feedback only have have to guess the rest of the information.

[BWX232]

In general race setups are harder to drive because they have a certain level of instability built into them to make the car react to your control movements faster.

I am not sure I agree with that-

A good race setup in RL is a balanced setup.

[Bob Smith]

Slartibartfast:

I've tweaked the road going setups a little more, posted here: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=278

I've also created some race setups that should be quicker around the track, yet still reasonable easy to drive. Obviously they are not going to be as chuckable as the road going setups but this should be a better compromise. http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=279
Replacements for the default setups? Perhaps. I find them easy to drive but default setups need to be driveable by everyone and I'm well used to LFS.

Hope they help. :)

[BWX232]

complete with furry-dice*

*furry-dice not included

LOL- downloading - making them read-only, and installing.. Thx.

[Woz]

I am not sure I agree with that-

A good race setup in RL is a balanced setup.

While you might not agree with this fact it is actually true. Did you know for example that with modern jet fighters they are actually impossible to fly without a computer between the controls and the flight surfaces for the simple reason of allowing the aircraft to move it ways that would not be possible otherwise.

A road going setup is configured to understeer, not react too quickly and not put the power down too quick for the simple fact that for joe public it is safer which makes the road a safer place to be.

A car setup for the track will be made to turn it sharp, be very stiff so it will react fast and have a power band that allows you to get the power down as fast as possible.

While a car with high grip low profile tires on stiff suspension might be set up balanced it WILL have a VERY narrow edge and will be harder to catch when it goes over that edge compared to a road car.

[BWX232]

While you might not agree with this fact it is actually true. Did you know for example that with modern jet fighters they are actually impossible to fly without a computer between the controls and the flight surfaces for the simple reason of allowing the aircraft to move it ways that would not be possible otherwise.

A road going setup is configured to understeer, not react too quickly and not put the power down too quick for the simple fact that for joe public it is safer which makes the road a safer place to be.

A car setup for the track will be made to turn it sharp, be very stiff so it will react fast and have a power band that allows you to get the power down as fast as possible.

While a car with high grip low profile tires on stiff suspension might be set up balanced it WILL have a VERY narrow edge and will be harder to catch when it goes over that edge compared to a road car.

I know about unstable jets that are un-flyable without fly-by-wire.. But that does not apply to cars.

Yes you are correct in the fact that if it does get away from you, a stiffly sprung car will be harder to recover from a slide in some circumstances than a softly sprung car, but the limits of the race tuned care are much greater.. and you don't need fly-by-wire to drive them. A race car is not "inherently unstable" so that it performs better in the way an F-117, F-22, a B2, or a French Dassault Rafale is.
http://driverheavenuploads.co.uk/BWX/avrafa_1.jpg


I don't think the comparison is a valid one. I saw a few post similar to this from you at RSC, and everyone disagreed with you there too.
A race car without traction control has to be drivable and balanced, it is not set up to be uncontrollable, and then all driver inputs sent to a computer to be adjusted so that you don't fly off the road. So defaults setups being twitchy and hard to drive has nothing to do with a fly-by-wire F-117.


That's me in the back.
http://driverheavenuploads.co.uk/BWX/plane1.jpg

[Woz]

Yes you are correct in the fact that if it does get away from you, a stiffly sprung car will be harder to recover from a slide in some circumstances than a softly sprung car, but the limits of the race tuned care are much greater.. and you don't need fly-by-wire to drive them. A race car is not "inherently unstable" so that it performs better in the way an F-117, F-22, a B2, or a French Dassault Rafale is.
http://driverheavenuploads.co.uk/BWX/avrafa_1.jpg

You could argue you dont need fly by wire but things like emc, traction control, launch control, Computer controlled gear boxes, abs etc. Some race cars are like computers on wheels. If this is NOT fly by wire what is? The driver with these system in a car is NOT actually connected directly to the car. The computer filter the drivers inputs and correct them as required?

Yes a race car has far more grip and much higher limits than a road car but step over that edge and it will punish you. The thing with racing is that you try to sit on that edge 100% of the time so a race car in any situation will be harder to drive on the edge than a road going car. The margin of error is just far lower and the higher speeds mean the time to react to an error is smaller.

Things like negative camber, slight toe out on rears etc all help the car turn in better but on a straight will make the car feel skittish in a straight line.

When I say unstable I dont mean the car falls off the track as the first possible situation but that they are tuned for agility and NOT stability.

[JJ72]

You could argue you dont need fly by wire but things like emc, traction control, launch control, Computer controlled gear boxes, abs etc. Some race cars are like computers on wheels. If this is NOT fly by wire what is? The driver with these system in a car is NOT actually connected directly to the car. The computer filter the drivers inputs and correct them as required?.

I don't think computer corrected inputs are allowed besides traction control and ABS, and most race cars isn't that advanced to have launch control, ABS ain't popular in racing scene either.......even with computer managed fuel injection and so it's nothing like jet fighters...it is perfectly possible to drive a race car without these aids, just look at racing in the 70's, or even formula 1 cars in 1990, those cars are nothing as stable as modern ones, but the quality of driving is still very high.

So I do think this comparison is not a valid one.

[BWX232]

You could argue you dont need fly by wire but things like emc, traction control, launch control, Computer controlled gear boxes, abs etc. Some race cars are like computers on wheels. If this is NOT fly by wire what is? The driver with these system in a car is NOT actually connected directly to the car. The computer filter the drivers inputs and correct them as required?

.

Yeah but in LFS no aids are allowed- even in real racing very few are. So in LFS universe, (since we are talking about LFS), default setups, actually all setups- should be balanced and stable up to the limits of adhesion IMO.

[Bob Smith]

In general I agree with Woz. A road car is made to be driveable by your granny. They often throw in ABS and lots of other electronic gadgetry to stop her from killing herself or the squirrel in the hedge. Sports car are usually purer to drive, in that they take away some understeer and half of the fancy electronics (or in TVRs case, all of them).

Race cars are a completely different story, they are setup to attack the track and be as fast as possible within the limits of driveability. I'm only repeating what I've read here, but a reviewer in a car mag got to drive his first proper race car, and said it just felt so awesome to drive, perfectly balanced, immediate, direct, etc. However it would have bitten him a lot harder had he got it over the edge compared to the sports cars he was used to driving. Racecars are not setup to be playful.

Like in LFS, racecars are setup to the drivers needs, to be tuned to just within his limits. So if you've never driven a race setup car before, and you get a fast setup, you're going to think it's unstable and whatnot, and it is IN YOUR HANDS. But whoever made the setup obviously felt it was quite driveable.

[BWX232]

In general I agree with Woz. A road car is made to be driveable by your granny. They often throw in ABS and lots of other electronic gadgetry to stop her from killing herself or the squirrel in the hedge. Sports car are usually purer to drive, in that they take away some understeer and half of the fancy electronics (or in TVRs case, all of them).

Race cars are a completely different story, they are setup to attack the track and be as fast as possible within the limits of driveability.

Why then is the RA and FZ50 so ridiculously unstable? They are road cars with road tires.. Not race setups.. That's why the default setups should be more stable. If those cars were real cars in RL, they would be incredibly dangerous.
I still think it is more of a physics flaw than anything, and the setups have little to do with it.

[durbster]

I still think it is more of a physics flaw than anything, and the setups have little to do with it.

I think they are a contributory factor. I've always felt that the default setups exaggerate the flaws in the physics, rather than mask them and I wouldn't be surprised if someone has installed S2, taken the RA out and simply thought, "this is not a realistic sim."

If the default setups are supposed to be the road-going setups then they should be soft, driveable and fun. It certainly shouldn't be impossible to turn into a corner without losing the back end. :eek:

The points about your average road car being setup for safety is generally true but not relevant to LFS. All the cars in LFS are sporty things, and their equivalents in real life would not be setup for little Granny Goggins.

You wouldn't buy a Ferrari, a Caterham 7 or a Lotus Elise and expect it to be soft, wallowy and understeery would you? Almost all the cars in LFS are the sorts of things people should be able to take to a track, and so while their default setups will be compromised for bumpy, speed-bump ridden public roads, they wouldn't be enormously removed from their race equivalents.

When I say unstable I dont mean the car falls off the track as the first possible situation but that they are tuned for agility and NOT stability.

I still disagree. :)

Just like a lot of sporty road cars, race cars are tuned for agility and stability but without the compromises necessary for public roads. Basically, if you don't have confidence in your car when you turn in, you have no chance of performing well in a race.

[tpa]

I agree that most of the default sets are hard to drive, and ESPECIALLY the RA.
Just yesterday I was wondering if the devs used the actual suspension values etc. of the real RA to make the default set for it's LFS counterpart.
Because I am kind of sure that's not how the real RA is behaving.

Now to the mysterious physics flaws in LFS that everyone keeps complaining about without saying which particular part bugs them and how it could be fixed.
Why not just make a set for the RA with the real thing's values and then take the real RA and the virtual one, to an identical test area. Then compare the results ... shouldn't that maybe give an idea where to start with physics updates?

[BWX232]

I agree that most of the default sets are hard to drive, and ESPECIALLY the RA.

Now to the mysterious physics flaws in LFS that everyone keeps complaining about without saying which particular part bugs them and how it could be fixed.
Why not just make a set for the RA with the real thing's values and then take the real RA and the virtual one, to an identical test area. Then compare the results ... shouldn't that maybe give an idea where to start with physics updates?
IMHO- yes.. It makes perfect sense.

It would be interesting to find out what the actual RA real life setup is.. And put that set on the RA in LFS, and see how it handles (if it is not already the default set).

Having a "real" car in LFS gives you the advantage of doing just that. If you got it to handle as close as possible to the real life counterpart, you know you are on the right track. If it doesn't handle close to the real life RA, then you know for a fact there is a flaw, and would be closer to knowing where to start working to improve it. It seems that would be a shortcut in the trial and error. it could be done scientifically with limits of adhesion.

[Bob Smith]

I'm sure that's part of the reason we have two real cars in LFS. I've been told by several people that the default set for the RA is the same as the real car uses, and I totally can't believe it. If the RA uses that suspension IRL then it must have been a track setup, suspension that stiff on the road would make all your teeth fall out.

[durbster]

You're probably right Bob, but if you compare it to something like a Lotus Elise then the standard setup will not sacrifice the handling for comfort and ride. Having said that, maybe the Elise isn't an appropriate comparison. It's a 2 seater Roadster but looks quite comfortable inside so maybe it's more like a BMW Z4 or a Honda S2000...?

Btw, I just tried your setup for the RA and it's an enormous improvement and makes the bleedin' thing driveable, thanks a lot :)

[Tege]

Yes like Bob said the RAs default set is as close to real as I could get it. Only thing that isn't from real value is the dampers because I don't have the values. On the real thing it's just adjustment "ring". But I did like if the the "value" was like 7/14 I put to slider close half way in LFS. That setup that the default in LFS imitates is the setup used on the track and it's easy to drive and you can use it on the normal roads too.

So you think that I should make the dampers softer?

I'll make changes to the default set after the physics patch is ready and I have more kms on the real car.

[tpa]

Yes like Bob said the RAs default set is as close to real as I could get it. Only thing that isn't from real value is the dampers because I don't have the values. On the real thing it's just adjustment "ring". But I did like if the the "value" was like 7/14 I put to slider close half way in LFS. That setup that the default in LFS imitates is the setup used on the track and it's easy to drive and you can use it on the normal roads too.

So you think that I should make the dampers softer?

I'll make changes to the default set after the physics patch is ready and I have more kms on the real car.

hey, cool to know someone's one it :thumb:

Do I think you should make the dampers softer? I think you should adjust them so that you feel like it's closest to the real thing ;)

[Bob Smith]

OK here's my analysis of the default RA setup:

3.02Hz front, 3.07Hz rear, with equal track widths that means: oversteer (before anti-roll is taken into account, at least)

Not to mention that sports car generally aren't much stiffer than 1.8-1.9Hz. Even my race setups don't go higher than 2.6Hz.

The anti-roll bar is actually contributes to roll stiffness more than the suspension does - this also seems too high since this can be attributed to snappy over-the-limit handling. Admittedly it does take away the oversteer from the springs, but too much, making the roll stiffness point towards aggressive understeer (due to the lack of a rear anti-roll bar).

Damping:
For the given spring rates, the rear rebound damping seems a touch low, but is OK. Bump damping looks too high though. At the front, bump damping is a touch better, but still a bit high, and rebound damping is over critically damped - also NOT GOOD for handling.

Transient damping analysis shows corner exit oversteer, even before throttle is applied.

Diff:
60% locked on the power side. Jeez! That's more than a GT3 Porsche. That's a TBR of 4:1 btw. Read: oversteer (when on the power).

Finally tyre pressure being equal on a car with that weight distribution seems a touch off, but nothing too serious.

Everything else seems fine.

But on the whole - that thing is set up to spin. Assuming you converted everything properly then the guy who set it up is nuts. Frankly I don't fancy driving that until it's fitted with something closer to the road setup I made for it.


... how's that?

[Silly]

Oh, Bob, don't waste your time criticizing the setup ESPECIALLY if you haven't driven the result... It's well documented that even with your 'road going' setups or Niels' equally well-inpired 'real' setups (http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2525839#post2525839), the big problem with LFS remains the tire physics in the sim!

Nothing wrong with that from a devolepment point of view though. It makes a lot of sense IMO that Scawen decided to tackle the finer points of the tire model only after suspension and dif modelling -- those can be checked against published data much more easily, but the tire model will need more tinkering. So this way round is the most time-efficient way to go about it.

But for now, it's like Stefano Casillo said (http://www.netkar-pro.com/devreports/2004-08-19.htm):


If one would have to come up with a sort of "ladder" to indicate what is the most important element in a sim and how big is the contribuition of that element on the overall feeling then it would look something like:

1) Tyre math model - 80%

This is THE most important element in a car simulation, remember it is the only contact with the road and the main source of every force acting on the car. The implementation could go from a sad "no tyre modeling at all", still typical in arcade games, where the car behaviour is mapped against a series of predefined curves.. like to say, if the car is going at speed X then it car rotate around its center at speed Y. This is usually refered to by the racing community as "central pivot problem". Going up in complexity there could be a 2 point (or bycicle) model, where the car is simulated and simplified into a 2 wheels veichle, where each virtual wheel is responsable for an "axle". This was common in early racing sims. Then you have the full 4 contact points with each wheel simulated separatelly and generating separate forces. From there, you can have a good or bad model, but once that's right, you've nailed 80% of your sim's general feel. In other words, let's say you come up with an amazing 5 arm multilink suspension in real time but your tyre math model sucks, then your sim will suck as well, the suspension improvement won't save a bad tyre model. This is the same for wings and every other part of the sim.The highlighted part reminds me of when the clutch-pack dif was added to the sim and the devs said it would help with RWD handling. Maybe a bit, but it didn't save the incomplete tire model. Same with downforce.

[Woz]

I still disagree. :)

Just like a lot of sporty road cars, race cars are tuned for agility and stability but without the compromises necessary for public roads. Basically, if you don't have confidence in your car when you turn in, you have no chance of performing well in a race.

And it is your right to disagree.

On the stability/agility issue. What is considered stable by one driver might be considered a nightmare by another, as also pointed out by Bob.

The norm is to set up the car to be as agile as the driver can cope with. Also depends on the track. A high speed track you might take out some of the twitch to get better top speed etc.

For example when I first tried a FWD car with oversteer I found it a nightmare and I was slower than with my balanced set. Once I had learnt to keep the car in balance I soon learn it would turn faster etc and now I find an oversteer FWD car stable.

[Bob Smith]

Oh, Bob, don't waste your time criticizing the setup ESPECIALLY if you haven't driven the result... It's well documented that even with your 'road going' setups or Niels' equally well-inpired 'real' setups (http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2525839#post2525839), the big problem with LFS remains the tire physics in the sim!

I don't consider basic analysis such as that to be time wasting, only took 2 or 3 mins anyway. I admit I haven't driven the car IRL, but that doesn't mean the principles aren't the same. For instance, my Dad had the tracking sorted on his car. He handed me the detailed specs for before and after, and I told him how it should have affected the car. From his drive home, he totally agreed and had certainly noticed most of the affects. This is all stuff I've picked up from LFS.

Yeah I've read that quote before and I certainly agree with it. LFS is the main issue. But even then that setup just doesn't look right. Also, another consideration is that, even with perfect tyre modelling, real life tyres vary a lot too, so it's impossible to get it exactly right for any car.

Tege has pm'd me though which explains a few things.

But, both my own road going setups (which are based on typical real life values) and Niels' set, improve driveability massively (albeit through different methods), so this shows that the default setup doesn't appear to suit the car. Neither of us used excessive understeer or such to get the car controllable, just fine tuned things here and there.

[BWX232]

the big problem with LFS remains the tire physics in the sim!


I can't wait for an update that starts to address that. :nod:

[Slartibartfast]

I'm really glad I posted this. Two reason's:

1. I've now got four sets of sets that I hadn't found previoulsy. 3 are from a known 'driving feel I like'. Can't wait to try them out.

2. Now I know I'm not nuts when it comes to the physics. I had not previously read certain statements. The lack of which lead me to believe the Devs were on a path to leaving the sim 'as is'.

I will drive the sets soon, thank you Bob, for your efforts. Given the current state of the physics, the setups need to cater to them. Not reality. Even in the end, the same will be true. We're driving LFS, not a RAC or LX6.

I have one other question for you but I'm not precisely sure what it is yet. I'm getting closer and when I do, I'll post two short replays demonstrating what it is I like, and don't.

Yes a race car has far more grip and much higher limits than a road car but step over that edge and it will punish you. The thing with racing is that you try to sit on that edge 100% of the time so a race car in any situation will be harder to drive on the edge than a road going car. The margin of error is just far lower and the higher speeds mean the time to react to an error is smaller.
Correct. But your entire argument is flawed. A race car is tuned to handle the physical demands of it's given class. When it comes to road racing cars that are based on mechnical grip, they are so freaking easy to drive over the limit it's not funny. Everything is smaller and quicker, as you say. The difference being that they are so direct, youd have to be numb from the hairline down not to know what the car is doing. The limit is more norrow. So subtlety is key. If you're smooth and accurate, you can write your name with those things if you have balance. I am, and I do. I don't expect you to believe me on the internet, who the heck am I? But I know what your missing, whether you take my word or not.

I've had terminal understeer at 100mph. I never saw it coming. (You do reduce your numbness eventually, starting with getting in and driving.) I went in too fast by a few of mph, steered too much, too quickly, didn't lift enough, and paid the price - skipping through gravel and having to clean out my air box and replace a plastic tube. The BIG question is... in the same situation, how do you think a sports car would've faired? A family sedan? There are many other mistakes I've driven through with glee that I guarantee you, in the same situation a road car would have been death.

After saying all that, it's also important to realise that a four wheel, rear drive vehicle is a four wheel, rear drive vehicle. They all handle the same. I personally prefer the racing breed. All that waiting around to see what a road car is doing makes me nervous. The thing that I'm on about is the extremities. My hands and feet. They are trained to do certain things in certain situations. Things that always work, within reasonable limits. In certain situations in LFS, the extremities are doing... well... seriously? Next to nothing. Up, down? Just doesn't do what I expect. Bob's LX6 set gave me a lot of realisitc response to realistic inputs that I've never experienced in LFS before. It was an eye opener. Both in that the physics are darn close, and the sets exploit what isn't. Sorry for being Mr. Munsty, but before that, I really didn't believe LFS was going to be able to simulate rear drive. Now all my rear drive sets are getting better. (I'm starting to learn how to set up a car, at least in LFS.) But the defaults left me - as someone who doesn't know much about setup - unconvinced.

As far as what we can do in a sim... well, I have no problem knowing exactly how much grip is left on each tire in GP4 and you don't see that chassis moving a whole lot. :D

Why not just make a set for the RA with the real thing's values and then take the real RA and the virtual one, to an identical test area. Then compare the results ... shouldn't that maybe give an idea where to start with physics updates?
Maybe not. Because reality updates much more frequently than computer and you can't simulate everything anyway. But that is certainly the way to do it. It's called A/B comparison and it works. Whether the setups match or not is of no importance. How much the thing dives with a certain amount of steer angle and braking... is. It would certainly lead to ideas of where to change the physics, but maybe not directly from the settings.

[BWX232]

Both in that the physics are darn close, and the sets exploit what isn't

I just tested the easy race and road going setups- The RA ad FZ50 are still ridiculously "over-steery" .. and once the rear tires break loose, they don't regain traction until way after they would in a real car- any car. In any road car you can go around a right angle corner in the city at 25 to 30 MPH.. try that in one of these cars and the rear tires break loose and don't regain traction- look at the "F" forces view- the indicators go red and stay there way too long.. only on the rear tires though. They also go instantly from green to red with nothing in between. It's like a light switch, instantly switching to no traction and staying there way too long. Go to the test area and test it out.

That makes me think it isn't just the tire's physics that are the problem, but maybe something with the inertia of the car rotation too.. who knows.

Why is it that the front tires always stick like glue and the rears are always breaking loose? It is like that in all cars in LFS, even the FWD cars..

With rFactor and GTL coming soon, it would be nice to see some improvements before too long. I guess we will all just sit and wait.

[Bob Smith]

I just tested the easy race and road going setups- The RA ad FZ50 are still ridiculously "over-steery"
OK I played with the FZ50 and worked out how to get rid of most of the oversteer when off the throttle. The RA seems fine to me though in this respect. When the rear does go though, it doesn't hang about.

Anyway I updated the zip, have another play with the FZ50.

[BWX232]

OK I played with the FZ50 and worked out how to get rid of most of the oversteer when off the throttle. The RA seems fine to me though in this respect. When the rear does go though, it doesn't hang about.

Anyway I updated the zip, have another play with the FZ50.


Ok cool.. thx.. -yeah I figured it could be tuned out.. Even though your previous sets were way more forgiving than default, once it stepped out, it was gone.

One thing to note about all of this.. I raced about 100 races today (it seemed like) with the FOX, and when the aero model takes hold at higher speed- it feels so much better.. At low speed it is still very touchy. it just seems like the mechanical grip is too low or something.. and doesn't go from "grip" - to "lack of grip" - back to "grip" again like it should.

Best example I can think of.. Get in a RWD car and take a sharp slow speed turn, and give it too much gas to break the rear wheels loose just a little, the instantly let off the throttle. The tail end will instantly stick again, and grab the small slide you initiated. I am talking under 30 MPH here.. In LFS if you do the same, the force indicators go red and you will have a weird long slow speed slide that ends when you are sideways or almost backwards. Then at about 7MPH or so it grabs again, the indicators go green. But at such low speeds, you shouldn't have a long slow slide like that on tarmac, especially with good soft sport tires.

I was experimenting a lot in the test area with the force view on the other day.. Some strange things happen. Skids at 8MPH and whatnot..
I guess I will have to make some replays and pinpoint exactly what I mean.

The good thing is, everyone has the same disadvantage, so online racing is still very fun.

[Cubits]

I tried the road-biased setups and was really impressed, but i felt the diff's were a little loose on a couple of cars.

In the RA, i'm using a 20/40 diff, and it has less sloppy power oversteer. With the roady setup, the car would spin the inside wheel in fourth gear turns and the car would throttle steer inwards in a big lazy arc. With it turned up to 20% for the power side, i was getting a lot more obediance from the tail.

Same can be said about the FZ50, which i was running at 20/50. I use a higher coast side for the mid/rear engined cars to help with the lift oversteer. It keeps the car more controlled when braking or entering a corner (or both).

One of the other factors i find with the lfs handling traits is down to driving style aswell. That corner entry oversteer is associated with weight shifts, for sure. You see people coming off the brakes from 100% just as they turn in, and whammo, backwardsville. If you are more gentle with the application of the controls (as you would be in reality), the whole thing feels much more dependable. The softer sprung setups definitely help in this regard!

At a recent trackday, a corolla driver spun into a lake from a 150kmh corner. He went through an understeer/lift oversteer phase before shifting down mid-corner (because he'd lost speed and the corolla has a 2rpm powerband), and the tail jumped around. He said it had never happened before, but this was his first day with a stiff set of cusco suspension in it. Nuff said about that. :)

Beyond these things though, there does seem to be an inherent problem with the transition from grip to slip, which is only a problem when you break traction (so everything is peachy until then).

[Bob Smith]

Road cars rarely have particularly tight diffs, this is why those setups are like that. The easy race setups have tighter diffs, since they're meant to be raced with.

Anyway it's not like I'm stopping you from altering them if you so wish.

[Silly]

Yes like Bob said the RAs default set is as close to real as I could get it. ... That setup that the default in LFS imitates is the setup used on the track and it's easy to drive and you can use it on the normal roads too.It's easy to drive IRL? That is very good to know. So, given Bob's analysis that attributes very aggressive handling characteristics to the RA (wasn't that sort of a design goal (http://tmo.uiah.fi/ext/RA2/Eng_Story.html)?), is it safe to say that even an aggressively tuned car is much easier to drive than it is in LFS S2P?
I'll make changes to the default set after the physics patch is ready and I have more kms on the real car.Sounds excellent. :D Is Scawen using real world data to tune the physics model then?

[FlintFredstone]

Ive been wondering about one aspect of lift off oversteer and this sim, on a 'normal' roadcar, when you 'lift off' the throttle it is actually 'damped' and comes of much slower, i think this is to stop such lift off occurences and aid gear changing, infact if i change gear very close to my ref limiter on my own car during the gear change it will sometimes hit the rev limiter as the throttle is left open enough to 'rev up')

Im wondering if a 'Damp' factor on throttle shuting would be a good idea to add to the setup of the cars.

It probably wouldnt aid me as i match the revs and trail brake anyway but could be an aid to new comers and right foot brakers, what do ya think?

Troy Mclure

[Tege]

It's easy to drive IRL? That is very good to know. So, given Bob's analysis that attributes very aggressive handling characteristics to the RA (wasn't that sort of a design goal (http://tmo.uiah.fi/ext/RA2/Eng_Story.html)?), is it safe to say that even an aggressively tuned car is much easier to drive than it is in LFS S2P?
Atleast I didn't have any problems handling it. It was my first time at the track on a real car and infact on a rwd car like that. The real car doesn't have so much power as in LFS so that makes it a bit easier, but if all goes well the '05 version will have even more than in LFS now. Couple of times the rear came out coming out of the corners but it was easy to control the small slides. Handling was kinda understeery on slow corners and neutral on fast ones.

Yeah design goal was to make a real sports car that you can tune for track use. The older version of the car had handling problems like oversteering and it was kinda "edgy".

[Hallen]

There are some very interesting points in this discussion.

1) I agree that the slow speed slides that never stop are... odd, to say the least. I think this is a problem in the sim engine, but who knows what right now. I do think that it has always been this way. I have never driven a race car and I know you can't feel the g's, so I could be wrong about this. I think this issue does happen with all the cars too, not just the ones in question here; just not as bad.

2) Bob's easy race sets are simply wonderful. I did find the FZ50 to still be too oversteery in certain situations. Maybe the update he just did fixed it. I found the set that I did better (for me), but I would really like to try the new set. The RAC is outstanding with Bob's easy race set. It is really fun to drive. It is still difficult to drive fast, but that is as it should be.

Getting rid of the throttle off dramatic oversteer tendency is critical for driveability of these mid/rear engine cars or the rear weight balanced cars. With the way the back end can be so hard to recover once a slide starts, it is important to keep this under control. I was able to drive the LX4 and LX6 relatively well in S1, but it took a good set that behaved more like a front wheel drive car than a rear wheel drive car. You still had to be ultra careful not to spin wheels while turning though.

[BWX232]

For the hell of it I downloaded netKar to see what it was like.

The Mini is very realistic for a front drive car. It handles exactly like all the sporty front drive cars I have ever driven in RL.. I had a relatively powerful one with stiff suspension too- the kind that rattle your teeth over road bumps..

Anyway, not comparing game to game here.. just that car in that game and the way the back and front end are very balanced and predictable. Especially the way the rear end will start to slide, and then if you counter steer and let off a little, it tucks back in and regains grip. Just like my VW Gold Wolfsburg, Honda Prelude, and Dodge Charger Shelby 2.2L Turbo (the fast stiffly sprung car) did.

Just an observation I thought worth posting in case anyone wanted to try it-- hey, it's free, why not.

[durbster]

For the hell of it I downloaded netKar to see what it was like.
Quite off topic but try the Formula cars. Dare I say they're possibly even better than LFS :eek:

[Antsa]

Here are setups for GTT and FZ50. Just try it. It feels so natural. This is how the cars should act. No more unrealistic sliding.

The key is to set normal front tires and soft rear tires.

[Cue-Ball]

I just want to chime in to say that I tried Bob Smith's Easy Race setups last night and they are a huge, HUGE improvement. I've already sent them off to my friends who play LFS and they had similar comments. I haven't had a chance to try Bob's "road" sets yet, but I expect they'll be even easier to handle and more realistic. To be quite honest, if these types of setups were the game default I don't think we'd hear hardly any complaints about tail-happy cars and loss of rear traction. Using these setups the rear end seems more firmly planted and it's easier to tell when you're on (or over) the edge. Once you DO go over the edge, the car is easier to reel back in and handles more predictably.

My hat's off to you, Bob. I truly hope that the devs consider using your setups as the default in future releases.

[Jouni Trogen]

My hat's off to you, Bob. I truly hope that the devs consider using your setups as the default in future releases.
Ditto, put my vote in for that one too.

[avih]

thx for the sets bob, great improvement. Niels' sets are great too. at last, the "natural feel" (at least imho) is here.

grats :)

[frokki]

I personally really enjoy tweaking sets, but I like to have something close to start with.

That's exactly what I was going to say. I have no skill (nor time) to build a fast setup from bottom (i.e. the default setups, which isn't actually even near the bottom :p ), but i don't like to take the world record setup and just drive neither.

Back to the topic, i'd like to see 'better' (= more balanced, easier to drive) default setups too. I can say i'm such a beginner on LFS, and I was really scared testing the RaceAbout for the first time, before I realised it was just the setup making the car quite hard to drive. Smoother default setups would not scare the beginners away.