GTR : Class balancing

[Scawen]

Please report here what you find out about the GTR class balancing.
Handicaps have now been removed as the cars should be more naturally balanced now.

Changes in GTR class :

FXO GTR is 20 kg lighter
FZR has an H-pattern gerabox so slightly slower gear shifts
FZR engine is also more limited by its redline so earlier gear shifts

[nesrulz]

:headbang:

[Scawen]

The XRR and FZR were already pretty balanced and the 20kg less for the FXR has to be tested, if it is gonna work out!No, they were not at all balanced before. To balance them, the FZR had an 80 kg handicap, while the XRR only had a 30 kg handicap.

[Nathan_French_14]

Not really a bug report, but a question. I was just curious why you chose to handicap parts of the cars via there gearboxes? Maybe you could have kept all the big GTR's as h-gates (which was better imo) instead of doing the seq throttle cut on the FXR and XRR. :shrug:

Sorry if i may seem rude, but i miss using h-gate on the XRR and FXR :(

[duke_toaster]

Not really a bug report, but a question. I was just curious why you chose to handicap parts of the cars via there gearboxes? Maybe you could have kept all the big GTR's as h-gates (which was better imo) instead of doing the seq throttle cut on the FXR and XRR. :shrug:

The FXR and XRR would be sequentials (probably with ignition cut) IRL.

[Huru-aito]

Not really a bug report, but a question. I was just curious why you chose to handicap parts of the cars via there gearboxes?

FZR was left with a H-pattern to try and balance the class. Sequential dogboxes change gears faster, and to speed up the process a bit there's an ignition cut system with them. That's different to throttle cut, the throttle plate stays open so in theory that would suit the turbocharged cars very well.

[DanneDA]

To be honest I'd rather drive an overweight (or less powerful engine) FZR with sequential gearbox (with ignition cut) than the H-gate with no extra weight. The FZR is now much trickier to drive than the other 2 GTR:s, and the reward as I see it is too low.

For endurance racing the FZR is going to be a bitch, as the other two are nearly fool-proof, when you drive normally.

[plehto]

I reckon fzr will be quite a bit quicker compared to xrr and fxr, if it's to run without ballast.
On certain tracks fzr hotlaps were >1-1.5s faster, and i doubt slower gearshifts will balance this out.
That combined with fzr's ability to run longer stints compared to the other two, it could turn out to be quite a dominant car.
However better wait and see some league races first.

[Cue-Ball]

That combined with fzr's ability to run longer stints compared to the other two, it could turn out to be quite a dominant car.I don't think this is necessarily true. The tires have been changed to wear out faster, so the FZR could be at a disadvantage there. Also, it still uses way more fuel. I just setup an AI race of 95 laps around Blackwood. All cars will run 2 stints, but the FXR and XRR only need 57/58% fuel for the first stint, while the FZR needs 78%. I'm not sure if the tanks on these cars are all the same size or not, but if they are that's a substantial weight penalty for the FZR. It won't make a difference on a 12 lap race, but certainly will on longer endurance races.

[evilgeek]

I reckon fzr will be quite a bit quicker compared to xrr and fxr, if it's to run without ballast.
On certain tracks fzr hotlaps were >1-1.5s faster, and i doubt slower gearshifts will balance this out.
That combined with fzr's ability to run longer stints compared to the other two, it could turn out to be quite a dominant car.
However better wait and see some league races first.

huh?

at half a tenth per shift (guessing), time will add up quick, plus the FZR can't run longer stints, as it burns way more fuel. so i think the balance should be fairly close now.

[Bob Smith]

I've yet to unlock, but am I assuming the XRR and FXR still have hopeless undertray centres, while the FZRs is perfectly positioned?

Edit: no, I see we do have more front wing angle available though. It'll have to do. :tilt:

[Dark Elite]

To be honest I'd rather drive an overweight (or less powerful engine) FZR with sequential gearbox (with ignition cut) than the H-gate with no extra weight. The FZR is now much trickier to drive than the other 2 GTR:s, and the reward as I see it is too low.

For endurance racing the FZR is going to be a bitch, as the other two are nearly fool-proof, when you drive normally.I agree entirely... I have to say having the FZR running a different gearbox to keep a class balanced seems to defeat the point somewhat - as it's clearly not in the same class any more. It would be interesting to have a poll and see how the numbers of people preferring weight balancing to gearbox crippling, but I'm pretty sure most people prefer the weight option.

Having an H-pattern gearbox in the FZR feels so unrealistic that I will probably resort to setting it to automatically clutch itself, which is a pity. A car like that would be extremely unlikely to use an H-pattern, and in the same class as sequential dogboxes? Much as I don't like to criticise, one must in the pursuit of perfection, and this just feels wrong.

The odds just seem stacked against the FZR now - lower rev limiter, slower gearbox, and to top it off the turbo lag in the other two is vastly reduced too.

Sam

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

Sounds like an angry FZR driver ;)

Of course, IRL there are cars that run both - and run together.

EDIT Just for example, the C6R uses a H gate 6 speed, whereas the F430 uses a sequential. Scawen did this right, and it's also great to show off the different trans sims. He said it was balanced, and they've been testing it so give him the benefit of the doubt until you actually put in laps in both cars, and get used to having to drive the H gate like a real trans. Don't just whine because you have to drive the full manual properly now.

[ACCAkut]

I always see the LFS GTRs like some sort of endurance class like the VLN. And their you will find H-pattern cars (like M3s) against sequentials (Porsche). And I think its a good way to compensate the lack of turbo lag on the FZR:shrug:

But I still don't like the clutch thingy....

[-=fly=-]

Please report here what you find out about the GTR class balancing.
Handicaps have now been removed as the cars should be more naturally balanced now.

Changes in GTR class :

FXO GTR is 20 kg lighter
FZR has an H-pattern gerabox so slightly slower gear shifts
FZR engine is also more limited by its redline so earlier gear shifts


FXR now consumes more fuel in my hands that it used to and tires wear way too fast, im actually slower with my old set than what i used to

XRR is now drivable, thank you for that lil less fuel consumption too(in my hands again)

FZR.. u just need pilot license and air traffic control to set off


quick test on as3 backstraight: FZR and XRR 4-5kmh increased top
FXR 1-2kmh increased top


almost forgot, u still cant get XRR out from sandpit as any other GTR, kinda big punish to use FR

[ajp71]

Having an H-pattern gearbox in the FZR feels so unrealistic that I will probably resort to setting it to automatically clutch itself, which is a pity. A car like that would be extremely unlikely to use an H-pattern, and in the same class as sequential dogboxes? Much as I don't like to criticise, one must in the pursuit of perfection, and this just feels wrong.

Most endurance championships have a mixture of gearbox types, IIRC FIA GT currently has cars running paddle shifts, sequential and H pattern. Britcar has a variety of gearboxes and BMW won the Nurburgring 24 hours last year with an H pattern gearbox. Adding a bit of variety to the GTR class is certainly very interesting, more motivation to build myself a set of pedals as heel and toeing with my current pedals isn't really possible. Personally I'd have given the XRR the option of an H-gate as well and the FXR no ignition cut to stop FXR drivers falling asleep.

[Vykos69]

So far the gearbox just helped the XRR getting a bit closer to FZR (without all the weights) but it's still a lot faster. And the typical user wont feel a huge difference, as he just have to look for clutch heat, lift the throttle through shifting, and all is good.

[Cue-Ball]

almost forgot, u still cant get XRR out from sandpit as any other GTR, kinda big punish to use FRHopefully the sand will eventually make it impossible for ALL of the cars to drive out. But that's a change for another day and another patch.

[scipy]

hm, dont know if this is supposed to be so but: in XRR, clutcless upshifts with ignition cut work like a dream, but on downshift there is no clutch - and imo it should be, at least that's how a racing sequential works (cut on upshift, but downshifts are straight forward heel and toe). I checked the driver settings and auto clutch was on (for XRR) but on braking and downshifting the clutch wasnt coming on.. and it's really hard to blip without the clutch, i.e. if u blip a milisecond too early it doesnt even let u downshift cause ur "on throttle".

plz tell me if i'm just wrong or should the clutch be working on downshifts.

[shiny_red_cobra]

hm, dont know if this is supposed to be so but: in XRR, clutcless upshifts with ignition cut work like a dream, but on downshift there is no clutch - and imo it should be, at least that's how a racing sequential works (cut on upshift, but downshifts are straight forward heel and toe). I checked the driver settings and auto clutch was on (for XRR) but on braking and downshifting the clutch wasnt coming on.. and it's really hard to blip without the clutch, i.e. if u blip a milisecond too early it doesnt even let u downshift cause ur "on throttle".

plz tell me if i'm just wrong or should the clutch be working on downshifts.

I also noticed this on the new FBM: No clutch on downshifts, but I thought it was supposed to be like that.

[deggis]

EDIT Just for example, the C6R uses a H gate 6 speed, whereas the F430 uses a sequential.
C6R is sequential, and no clutch required in dowshifting (and it's GT1 while F430 is GT2).

Few years ago GT2 class Porsches still had H-gearboxes while other cars were running sequentials. But I think you'd struggle to find a modern GT car with H-pattern in top classes like GT1/GT2. I wouldn't say VLN or FIA GT3 are top classes. Then again by looks of the GTRs in LFS, they are few years old maybe.

[Ball Bearing Turbo]

Hm, I thought the C6R was not sequential according to the FiaGT website.

Nonetheless, the LFS cars would be more GT2 class with their < 500HP, so the point still stands.

[Woz]

Having an H-pattern gearbox in the FZR feels so unrealistic that I will probably resort to setting it to automatically clutch itself, which is a pity. A car like that would be extremely unlikely to use an H-pattern, and in the same class as sequential dogboxes? Much as I don't like to criticise, one must in the pursuit of perfection, and this just feels wrong.

Aussie V8s run H patterns and they are GTR like spec? So why unrealistic.

Out of interest as I have not tested the patch yet. Can I still use my H shifter on all the GTR cars or are they locked as Seq or H

[teedot]

if you have a g25, it will make you use the paddles for sequential trans and the shifter for h-box

[ajp71]

Few years ago GT2 class Porsches still had H-gearboxes while other cars were running sequentials. But I think you'd struggle to find a modern GT car with H-pattern in top classes like GT1/GT2. I wouldn't say VLN or FIA GT3 are top classes. Then again by looks of the GTRs in LFS, they are few years old maybe.

Sequential gearboxes have been within reach for GT teams for years yet they are still by no means the exclusive choice of transmission, a lot of it is down to personal preference nothing else. LFS may as well give a representation of the broad spread of gearbox choices available, although I think most driving enthusiasts would agree that they don't want to be racing or racing against Ferrari style paddle shift/TC/ABS computer driven cars. IRL some drivers may decide to go for a sequential 'box because they want to be competitive even if they don't find it as satisfying to drive, thankfully LFS can balance the cars in a way that would never work IRL (it has been tried) so that people can drive something substantially different but still be competitive.

[deggis]

Aussie V8s run H patterns and they are GTR like spec? So why unrealistic.
Well Aussie V8 is pretty much the only top level / pro series where rule book says H-pattern. I hope they'll never change that :) But it's a spec series and LFS GTRs are not touring cars, so not exactly same thing.

Sequential gearboxes have been within reach for GT teams for years yet they are still by no means the exclusive choice of transmission, a lot of it is down to personal preference nothing else.
I doubt driver's personal preference matters much because sequential is faster and easier to use.

In "amateur" series like VLN or FIA GT, it's a budget question so H pattern is obvious choice because it's much cheaper, but that's not the case in FIA GT / ALMS / Le Mans etc. I claim that today there are no H-pattern powered cars in these series, only expections might be the few privately build cars that once in a while shows up in a race or two.

I once asked about this stuff from one driver who has been driving several cars (F430, C6R and some others) in French GT series and random races in FIA GT and he said last time he used clutch for shifting was in 2002 in Bi-Turbo Porsche.

Probably only matter of time when paddles become "standard" in GT cars. Which is a pity, it's always less job to do for the driver :(

LFS may as well give a representation of the broad spread of gearbox choices available, although I think most driving enthusiasts would agree that they don't want to be racing or racing against Ferrari style paddle shift/TC/ABS computer driven cars.
I agree, sims are so much more easier to drive that I see no use for TC in sims (except maybe for F1).

[plehto]

huh?

at half a tenth per shift (guessing), time will add up quick, plus the FZR can't run longer stints, as it burns way more fuel. so i think the balance should be fairly close now.

Guessing isn't going to do much good.
And secondly fuel has never been the limiting factor for stint length. In endurance races fzr can do a 1 hour stint most of the time, when xrr is limited to 40-50 minutes.

[yankman]

Well now it looks like the FZR is ahead of XRR on the oval and FXR is still behind.
The H-Shifter only matters at the start, but XRR's have serious probs getting the power down. So no disadvantage for the FZR.
The early redline in FZR is annoying, but with 5th gear for normal driving and 6th gear for drafting it is not a problem.
Only disadvantage the FZR has is the higher fuel consumption but this only matters on longer distance races.

I still have to check for the tire consumption, but so far I can say the new balancing does not work for the oval.

[Bob Smith]

Since the oval only relies on top speed, it is obvious this patch wasn't really going to help there. Try at a proper race track.

[510N3D]

Since the oval only relies on top speed, it is obvious this patch wasn't really going to help there. Try at a proper race track.

It obvious? Why should improvements, particularly regarding the GTR balancing exclude the conditions on the oval? That makes no sense. A balance is only perfect at the point it covers all possible situations. Correct me if im wrong. Personal likes or dislikes hither and thither.

[atledreier]

If you can device a system that makes the class balanced for ever combination of track and situation, let us know, please. At leas it'll keep you busy for a while....

Some cars will have the advantage in some circumstances no matter what we do. It's like that in real life too.

[tristancliffe]

It is impossible to balanace all cars on all tracks with all drivers for all race lengths. I'd have thought that the Oval on short races is one of the most likely to show up differences in the cars...

The balancing is more an issue in long (over 50 lap) races, and isn't necessarily just about lap times, but about refuelling times, fuel economy, tyre heat/wear etc. Whilst the FZRs might disappear into the distance, you can hope to catch them with less pit stops or more consistency.

[510N3D]

If you can device a system that makes the class balanced for ever combination of track and situation, let us know, please. At leas it'll keep you busy for a while....



Some cars will have the advantage in some circumstances no matter what we do. It's like that in real life too.


i know it could never be "perfect" but the goal is to get it as close to it as possible right? Otherwise all the effort would be useless. However, excluding various things, such as the oval will not help finishing it. I think and correct me if im wrong but at some point the oval can also provide important informations since its a different kind of track and the way the people make use of the vehicles is also rather different.

It is impossible to balanace all cars on all tracks with all drivers for all race lengths. I'd have thought that the Oval on short races is one of the most likely to show up differences in the cars...



The balancing is more an issue in long (over 50 lap) races, and isn't necessarily just about lap times, but about refuelling times, fuel economy, tyre heat/wear etc. Whilst the FZRs might disappear into the distance, you can hope to catch them with less pit stops or more consistency.

believe it or not but its also possible to host one hour races (or more if you dare ;)) on the oval as we do once in a while.

[yankman]

Well the weight penalties that have been given with the patches before greatly helped to equal out XRR and FZR.
I thought, it was also made to have broader variety in gtr cars used on the oval.

If an oval is a proper track or not doesn't really matter.
The devs included an oval in the game, so "it does matter" in all simulation related things as much as the other tracks do.

I am about bit disappointed to get such a reply from a moderator here.

[Vykos69]

Stop bashing, yankman only said, the actual balances does not work on the oval so far. And that is a valid argument.

My feelings still are: FZR is fastest, XRR got closer, but not close enough and FXR is far behind.

[Jakg]

Frankly the Oval is a really "extreme" place to balance the cars for - it would be like trying to get the cars on an AutoX layout.

IMO the cars need to be "most balanced" for long races on long, wide tracks like Aston and Westhill. This is what Scawen's done.

Seriously, i'd love to hear your opinion on the way they should be balanced while the cars still have differences.

Bob may be a moderator, but he is also allowed to have an opinion.

[510N3D]

I am about bit disappointed to get such a reply from a moderator here.

Theres no reason to be disappointed. He is one of "them".:smileypul:D

[tristancliffe]

Why? The moderators are just players like you and me. They have no reason to 'behave' differently... Why should they?

[yankman]

The balancing is more an issue in long (over 50 lap) races, and isn't necessarily just about lap times, but about refuelling times, fuel economy, tyre heat/wear etc. Whilst the FZRs might disappear into the distance, you can hope to catch them with less pit stops or more consistency.

Totally correct, I have even driven a race with 360 Laps on the oval.
If it comes to longer races the XRR is so far clearly the car of choice.
The FZR might be faster but it is not fast enough to give the advantage of an additional pit stop.

The problem here is that the XRR could run >110 laps with R3 tires and the FZR only arround 80 (patch x10).

If u do al little math, the XRR has the pit stop advantage only if a race lasts longer then 240 laps, which is quite a long distance.

So I care more for equal speed rather then fuel consumption.

[yankman]

Why? The moderators are just players like you and me. They have no reason to 'behave' differently... Why should they?

I really hope that moderators are players. But in terms of discussion they shall "moderate", rather then starting an old topic, which caused several flame wars.
It not even belongs to this thread.

[510N3D]

Frankly the Oval is a really "extreme" place to balance the cars for - it would be like trying to get the cars on an AutoX layout.

weight penalties was a good solution, although the FXR was still 1 second slower the FZR and XRR where almost perfectly balanced. So much about "extreme"


Seriously, i'd love to hear your opinion on the way they should be balanced while the cars still have differences.


They'll always have, right? So whats your point?

[N I K I]

I just want to say that finally HL times and online times (quali laps) are going to be same, i can come back for FZR hotlaps :nod::)

[Jakg]

weight penalties was a good solution, although the FXR was still 1 second slower the FZR and XRR where almost perfectly balanced. So much about "extreme"



They'll always have, right? So whats your point?Extreme as in that handling isn't that important, it's all about the top gear, power on the straights etc.

The cars have differences, so they will never be balanced everywhere. Catering to making them equal on the oval WOULD make them unbalanced on most proper tracks.

[yankman]

Extreme as in that handling isn't that important, it's all about the top gear, power on the straights etc.
Your not right at this point.
If u setup the car with hardest possible suspension, lowest wings and lowest ride height, you will not get fast lap times on the oval.
U should give it a try.

The cars have differences, so they will never be balanced everywhere. Catering to making them equal on the oval WOULD make them unbalanced on most proper tracks.
Yeah thats the problem, the oval is far different from the other tracks,
but why not to try to find a good compromise ?

[510N3D]

Extreme as in that handling isn't that important, it's all about the top gear, power on the straights etc.

Ok then take a proper oval set for any car and make the suspension as stiff or as soft as possible or drive without downforce and then try to catch a line as close as possible to the apex in turn three. /exaggerate :smileypul

Catering to making them equal on the oval WOULD make them unbalanced on most proper tracks.

I doubt that. But i can be wrong with my assumption as same as you are.

Edit: yankman you forum hotlapper ;)

[Vykos69]

I just want to say that finally HL times and online times (quali laps) are going to be same, i can come back for FZR hotlaps :nod::)

I actually do think, that in patch Y penalty weights online will be reintroduced, as the GTR class is more unbalanced than b4 the patch with penalties...

Edit: Besides that, There might be a reason, why the leagues driving on oval have very restrictive and close technical rules... So far I dont know a real Oval league, running a flat six na, a flat 4 turbo and an inline 4 turbo at the same level.

[N I K I]

I actually do think, that in patch Y penalty weights online will be reintroduced, as the GTR class is more unbalanced than b4 the patch with penalties...
In that case i hope that weight will be in HL mode then :shrug:

[tristancliffe]

Why? Surely hotlaps are all against the same car, so the handicaps would just change the speed of ALL the cars...

[Bean0]

I actually do think, that in patch Y penalty weights online will be reintroduced, as the GTR class is more unbalanced than b4 the patch with penalties...


I was under the impression that the balancing we had in patch X was temporary until it could be fixed in the next physics incompatible patch, making the cars we race online and those used for hotlapping the same again.

If it is more unbalanced now than before, have the beta testers been doing their job properly ? :p

[Highharti]

I like the new way of balancing the cars by different gearboxes. :thumb:
Whatever will be changed in Patch Y:
H-Pattern should still stay in FZR as sequentials in XRR and FXR :nod:

[ajp71]

If you want balanced racing on the oval either run a single car or use a server side handicap system to balance them, driving on a racing track requires far more skill and far more things become important rather than just sitting on an oval flat out simply turning the steering wheel for an hour then making a pitstop and repeating.

[Vykos69]

I was under the impression that the balancing we had in patch X was temporary until it could be fixed in the next physics incompatible patch, making the cars we race online and those used for hotlapping the same again.

If it is more unbalanced now than before, have the beta testers been doing their job properly ? :p
Just rethink again, before you post such personal offending BS again. thx.

[Shotglass]

Your not right at this point.
If u setup the car with hardest possible suspension, lowest wings and lowest ride height, you will not get fast lap times on the oval.
U should give it a try.

no wonder if you take away all the downforce
his point is still true you can get away with a lot more setup mistakes on the oval then anywhere else and what really matters in terms of performance is weight power and downforce
so you could either makes those nigh on identical thereby turning 3 distinc cars into one or do some silly extreme balancing which wont work anywhere else but the oval

also keep in mind that thanks to insim you could always code a server app that enforces some intake and weight penalties just for the oval

[Bean0]

Just rethink again, before you post such personal offending BS again. thx.

I did think twice about posting that, and I was sure you'd see it as the joke it was intended to be, I even added the ':p' to be sure.

Apologies to those who took it seriously :shrug:

[Shotglass]

Just rethink again, before you post such personal offending BS again. thx.

how exactly is that the least bit offensive?
its just that this patch is more of a test than the usual ones and the number of bug report and balance threads alone shows that quite clearly

[510N3D]

no wonder if you take away all the downforce
his point is still true you can get away with a lot more setup mistakes on the oval then anywhere else and what really matters in terms of performance is weight power and downforce
so you could either makes those nigh on identical thereby turning 3 distinc cars into one or do some silly extreme balancing which wont work anywhere else but the oval

also keep in mind that thanks to insim you could always code a server app that enforces some intake and weight penalties just for the oval

If you want balanced racing on the oval either run a single car or use a server side handicap system to balance them, driving on a racing track requires far more skill and far more things become important rather than just sitting on an oval flat out simply turning the steering wheel for an hour then making a pitstop and repeating.

and once again we have two people beeing a prime example in making themselves look like a fool because A: they do not read the etire thread or do not understand its content and B: using facts on the basis of limited knowledge or lack of experiences. :thumbsup::shrug:

[yankman]

no wonder if you take away all the downforce
his point is still true you can get away with a lot more setup mistakes on the oval then anywhere else and what really matters in terms of performance is weight power and downforce
so you could either makes those nigh on identical thereby turning 3 distinc cars into one or do some silly extreme balancing which wont work anywhere else but the oval


Still not the truth.
Even with adjusted wings there is a big difference in sets and therefore in laptimes, of course the differences in times are much smaller then on circuit tracks.
But the laptimes are smaller too.

Anyway I understood the sense of this thread in posting experience with the new balancing system rather than blaming drivers for whatever they like.

Keeping this in mind, I hope the devs got the information I wanted to give.
I will not argument on the "noobness" of the oval again.
Think whatever u like of it.

[Shotglass]

Anyway I understood the sense of this thread in posting experience with the new balancing system rather than blaming drivers for whatever they like.

Keeping this in mind, I hope the devs got the information I wanted to give.
I will not argument on the "noobness" of the oval again.
Think whatever u like of it.

no ones blaming you or calling you a noob jeez stop with the vitctimhood card already
all we are saying is that the oval is a very different track and a balance that works there wont work on the majority of all the other tracks lfs has to offer

[Bob Smith]

To those who thought my post was somehow out of line, let me make the point clearer:

The cars in any class, once balanced, do not need to give the same lap times on ANY track (oval or otherwise). That is not what balancing is. If you take the cars over all the tracks, and sum the laptimes for car, the totals should be similar. So one car is faster on some tracks and vice versa.

The only reason I mention the oval is that, as ant one particular track goes, it is the worst on which to make comparisons, as it is so different to all the other tracks.

Edit: damn that shotglass

[ajp71]

and once again we have two people beeing a prime example in making themselves look like a fool because A: they do not read the etire thread or do not understand its content and B: using facts on the basis of limited knowledge or lack of experiences. :thumbsup::shrug:

I did race on ovals quite a bit in N2003, a superspeedway like we have in LFS required you to accelerate for abit then plonk it in top gear and weld the right pedal to the firewall. How you can't see that there's little other than power and drag affecting laptimes is beyond me, all the GTR cars in LFS can take the oval flat with the right setup so that's hardly an issue either. The only track where you don't have to change gear is the oval so I can't really see your argument against using gearboxes as a balancing tool.

[Vykos69]

how exactly is that the least bit offensive?
its just that this patch is more of a test than the usual ones and the number of bug report and balance threads alone shows that quite clearly

sry, if I sounded harsh. This patch includes new stuff in a lot of different parts in LFS, including a new car (tires, clutches, AI, new track, updated tracks and a lot of small options). It is by far one of the most complex patches in LFS, therefor no wonder about bugs here and there. And that's also the reason for the public testpatch.

[510N3D]

I did race on ovals quite a bit in N2003, a superspeedway like we have in LFS required you to accelerate for abit then plonk it in top gear and weld the right pedal to the firewall. How you can't see that there's little other than power and drag affecting laptimes is beyond me, all the GTR cars in LFS can take the oval flat with the right setup so that's hardly an issue either. The only track where you don't have to change gear is the oval so I can't really see your argument against using gearboxes as a balancing tool.

Thanks for the answer which proves that im right about my previous statement :thumb: Besides, where did i said that im against gearboxes as a balancing tool?

[Scawen]

I was under the impression that the balancing we had in patch X was temporary until it could be fixed in the next physics incompatible patch, making the cars we race online and those used for hotlapping the same again.

If it is more unbalanced now than before, have the beta testers been doing their job properly ? :pThe purpose of this thread is to get the balance right, so hopefully the ballast added after patch Y is minimal. I know you weren't being too serious but anyway, the beta testers could never get class balancing 100% right. It takes hundreds of people. Even if the beta testers all worked all week on class balancing, they wouldn't find every setup option or possibility to balance the cars. There are pleanty of other things to test, we fixed a lot of things in these last few weeks.

By the way, to others who talk about perfect balancing, that will never happen and it's not the aim. The aim is that some of the cars are better on some tracks and some are better on others. What we don't want is what we had before, FZR the best choice on all tracks regardless (or in the TBO class you had to have a FXO to be competitive, regardless of which track you were on).

[dougie-lampkin]

FZR's at the new SO pwn all the other GTR's :D

about 1 - 2 seconds faster per lap than the FXR, on average...adds up after a 20 lap race...

EDIT: After a 20 lap race, the 3 FZR's pwned the other cars, and finished 40 seconds ahead of the last placed XRR...

[N I K I]

Ok, looks like the ballast will be must again.

But is there anyway that ballast be in HL mode too, cos hotlapping with different car is just stupid. And since now HL's will be reseted i think that ballast in HL mod should be ok?

[Cue-Ball]

FZR's at the new SO pwn all the other GTR's :D

about 1 - 2 seconds faster per lap than the FXR, on average...adds up after a 20 lap race...

EDIT: After a 20 lap race, the 3 FZR's pwned the other cars, and finished 40 seconds ahead of the last placed XRR...I've found the same is true on Westhill (running AI, not humans). the FZRs lead, the XRRs run second, the FXRs are far behind in third. Even with having to make an extra stop for fuel over 100 lap race, and even with their increased tire wear, the FZRs are still the lead cars.

I'm hoping the Masters of Endurance guys will give the new test patch a try on various tracks and see what they think. I have a feeling that even after the changes, the FZR is going to be the dominant car on most tracks.

[srdsprinter]

I believe once the human element is added, in that the FZR's H-shifters need to be somewhat taken care of and is somewhat easy to make mistakes with, that the balance won't need to be as drastically changed (80+kg) as in X. From my brief experiences with the GTR's around BW (a few laps each), the FXR and XRR are initially much easier to drive smoothly consistently than the FZR. If the FZR is faster but requires a lot of concentration not to make a big (race-ending) mistake, then I think the balance is effective.

[dougie-lampkin]

I believe once the human element is added, in that the FZR's H-shifters need to be somewhat taken care of and is somewhat easy to make mistakes with, that the balance won't need to be as drastically changed (80+kg) as in X. From my brief experiences with the GTR's around BW (a few laps each), the FXR and XRR are initially much easier to drive smoothly consistently than the FZR. If the FZR is faster but requires a lot of concentration not to make a big (race-ending) mistake, then I think the balance is effective.

But the problem then lies in noob drivers who get pwned by FZR's...
All cars should be equal (within 0.2 sec per lap roughly), and then it's down to the driver...that is the fairest way IMO...

[Cue-Ball]

But the problem then lies in noob drivers who get pwned by FZR's...
All cars should be equal (within 0.2 sec per lap roughly), and then it's down to the driver...that is the fairest way IMO...I don't think that is fair. Firstly, equal on what track? If they are fairly equal on a fairly long, high speed track then one car will be better on shorter, tighter tracks (and vice-versa). Also, should the FXR be as fast as the FZR when it has the multiple advantages over the FZR (AWD, a more foolproof shifter, reduced fuel consumption, reduced tire wear)?

IMO, the FXR needs to be slower, because it has other advantages that can make up for some of that deficit, and that make it easier to drive and more likely to survive a full race. The XRR also needs to be slightly slower than the FZR, since it has tire, fuel, and transmission advantages. The only question is, how much faster does the FZR need to be to make races fair and interesting. I think we'll only know that once the GTR leagues (MoE and others) have a chance to put the new cars through their paces.

[PaulC2K]

I think the FZR shouldnt be able to kill itself unless theres a decent amount of abuse handed to it, and it should be weighed down a little in return. It'd work better at endurance level as well as sprint races, which lets be honest is what 95% of the people driving the car are using it for.

They need to be competitive at multiple uses, evenly spread over various tracks but competitive to race together over 6 laps as they are over 6 hours. How you do that i dont know, but if close racing in a multi-car class is the aim, it needs to be looked at from as many angles as possible.

In sprint races tyre wear and fuel econ makes no difference, its down to which car puts its power down the best, handling and ease to drive. The FZR is already easily the fastest, the FXR the slowest. I *hate* rwd cars (with a passion) and i can drive the FZR cautiously round most tracks considerably quicker than i can get the FXR round being as heavy and aggressive as i see fit. I remember spending about 30 laps in the FXR and doing a so-so lap, and within 5 laps i'd gone about 3/4sec faster taking corners with extreme caution, that was round one of the longer Aston tracks, and it just seemed very wrong that someone who couldnt drive rwd cars in comfort could go faster in the FZR over a FXR with such ease and little effort, if i can do that then imagine what a decent (!!) driver can do with the FZR.
In endurance races the bigger picture finally comes into account, then the fuel econ, tyre wear and clutch overheat are something to use as positive/negative reasons to pick a specific car over another. While i dont care for public server racing, it surely should be a balanced playing field there too, just as it should for endurance racing for those who find that aspect appealing. How you make it even on all ground i have no idea and wouldnt envy the task of trying to make it even, but those are my thoughts on it and i think sprint races actually get overlooked because of things that matter in 100+ lap races but make sod all difference in a 10 lap race.


Also, if the XRR effectively gets -30kg (X's +30 removed) and gets the Seq box, while the FXR only gets -20kg and the Seq box, that means the FXR is effectively 10kg heavier as a result of moving from X to X30 at least, Do people actually consider it quicker than the XRR, over any distance, where it needs to lose ground on the other 2 cars? Seems a bit of an odd one to me, i wouldnt have thought anyone would consider this a competitive car for racing in anyway, easier to drive is one thing, but its still considerably slower everywhere anyway and now its lost 10kg over the other 2 it would seem.

[Cue-Ball]

Also, if the XRR effectively gets -30kg (X's +30 removed) and gets the Seq box, while the FXR only gets -20kg and the Seq box, that means the FXR is effectively 10kg heavier as a result of moving from X to X30 at least, Do people actually consider it quicker than the XRR, over any distance, where it needs to lose ground on the other 2 cars? Seems a bit of an odd one to me, i wouldnt have thought anyone would consider this a competitive car for racing in anyway, easier to drive is one thing, but its still considerably slower everywhere anyway and now its lost 10kg over the other 2 it would seem.I think the big problem with the FXR is that it's a car without a home. Logically, it should be heavier and have less power (more weight and drag due to AWD). The problem is that it has all of the AWD drawbacks without enjoying any of the benefits. Driving on a completely dry track on a clear day, there's no real advantage to AWD - only disadvantages. For the FXR to really shine we need very cold track temps, loose surfaces (marbles), and inclement weather. Until LFS includes at least one of those, there's really no good reason to use an AWD car over the others.

Similarly, if LFS modeled changing (or at least changeable) track temperatures, the FZR would lose a lot of its luster real quick. The very first race with a 110*F track and FZR lovers would be wishing their engine was at the other end of the car because the back tires would be boiling from doing all the work.

I firmly believe that the ability to change track and air temperatures would add a huge amount to the variability and enjoyment of races in LFS. In fact, it could very well be the single most important factor in mitigating car strengths and weaknesses, and adding some spice to the game.

[PaulC2K]

True, changing conditions would play a huge factor, although you have to wonder how much, afterall unless its random (meaning people dont know the temp and cant act upon it before the start grid) it means someone somewhere decides what gets used, at least as a starting point, a range, or something like that, and it'll only be the happy medium for all cars... which is really what we have right now. It'd be awesome when true environmental factors come into play like time & weather, but im not sure adjustable ambient temps would change much unless people made a concious effort to vary them rather than pick the 'community agreed value' and used that all the time.

I have no idea if LFS simulates air/surface temps, but it'd be nice if the British tracks were colder, Fern Bay was +15'c and Kyoto was +5'c as to reflect their respective geographical locations. But thats all for another discussion in half a dozen years time when were chatting about S3 patches i guess :(

But I suppose your right, the AWD would plain suck on a level playing field, but at the same time i think it needs to be helped out so it isnt the car nobody drives competitively, which is what the car always has been and always will be until the day extra track variables come into play. To me the FXR was unpopular to race with on X and now with X30 its effectively 10kg heavier in comparison so what hope does it have of becoming wanted? Its the ugly duckling of the GTR class and its got a long wait till that will change on the basis of these changes.
MoE already gives this car 110% points compared to the other GTR cars because its there for all to see how uncompetitive it is, and its just got comparetively slower.

[Cue-Ball]

I have no idea if LFS simulates air/surface temps, but it'd be nice if the British tracks were colder, Fern Bay was +15'c and Kyoto was +5'c as to reflect their respective geographical locations.That's something that I proposed in the Improvements section quite some time ago. Not only vary the temperatures by location, but by time of day as well. While an afternoon at Fern Bay may have 90*F ambient temps and 120*+ track temps, early morning at Blackwood would be considerably cooler (even more so than Blackwood in the afternoon). This would make it fairly realistic and allow a lot of temperature variation, without requiring anyone to manually change anything (other than picking a track/time, of course). I would think that would be a fairly straightforward change, but I really have no idea.

To me the FXR was unpopular to race with on X and now with X30 its effectively 10kg heavier in comparison so what hope does it have of becoming wanted? Its the ugly duckling of the GTR class and its got a long wait till that will change on the basis of these changes.
MoE already gives this car 110% points compared to the other GTR cars because its there for all to see how uncompetitive it is, and its just got comparetively slower.While it might be a bit heavier than it was in X10, it's got a better gearbox which should help offset some of that. Probably not enough to make it competitive on the current tracks, but if you make it too much faster you'll get complaints about the car that's easiest to drive being almost as fast as the harder cars (I haven't checked, but it might already be faster than the XRR on the tight tracks where it has a torque and traction advantage).

[ajp71]

I don't see the problem in making the FZR the fastest car on pace, even including pit stops it should be theoretically much faster and if well driven it should walk away from FXRs IMO. The trade off being that it's much harder to drive. With an FXR you've really got to be trying to get into trouble whilst the FZR will bite at the slightest mistake, easy to make and hard to correct if you're tired with worn out tires.

[Jonesy_]

I do see a problem making the fzr fastest car on pace on all tracks, since it is way easier to drive than xrr.

The balance we have in X10 is somehow quite good between fzr and xrr in terms of a longer races where pitstops come into count.

But on shorter races the fzr still kinda walks all over the xrr.

[PaulC2K]

Well, the point i was getting at is that the FXR just simply isnt a car you'd consider when you look at the 3 car line-up.
I dont have a problem with the hardest cars to drive being the most rewarding when you get it right, but the fact that the average Joe can beat the FXR HLVC in an FZR says something isnt right. You get it right, you get a cookie. The FZR in comparison to the FXR is more like 'you keep it pointing in the right direction, heres a jar of cookies' because its unreasonably quick, and the XRR is too for that matter.

The FZR isnt exactly a car that takes years to master and only the aliens can drive, IMO its easier than the XRR, and thats from someone who'll happily admit to struggling to drive RWD cars with ease (if left on my own and i've got a good feel for the car im fine, but i cant lock horns with someone without being slightly concerned) and yet with that said im still considerably quicker in a car im not happy in compared to something i know i can attack the track in.

As i say, the fact that they are faster isnt a problem, i dont think anyone would argue that, however the margin in which it dominates is excessive to say the least. If this really is supposed to be balancing then the FXR should be slightly slower than the XRR on a laptime basis, and the FZR should be slightly quicker than the XRR due to its slightly harder tyre wear rather than its fuel consumption. In X10 none of the cars can go a full tank on race competitive tyres so they cant use it to their tanks as an advantage, the tyres are the first limit that you hit, not the consumption of fuel. That might have changed with the new tyre changes, softs are useless even for sprint races it seems, mediums look to be the norm now, maybe they can go further, it'll take a while to find out setup-wise what will and wont work.

[MaximUK]

If you look at AS National public races you will find 70%+ of the field (and usually more) will be FXR's. Even though the FZR, when driven well, is clearly faster. In league races I am sure the mix is very different where the drivers tend to be more interested in outright speed compared to ease of driving.

I am not sure you can ever address this so if you balance, or at least close their lap times towards each other, public races will probably become 90%+ FXR. If you give the RWD an advantage enough to see them used more in public races, league races will become all FZR.

Before we can really balance them we would need to agree on what type of races we were trying to achieve the balance in. I don't think we could ever get agreement on this. Won't it will come down to making the imbalances within tolerable margins more than any real balance. In my mind the goal is to make sure you never see one car dominate the grid.

Maxim

[aimbottle]

Although I didn't test very much I'd like to say something:

PLEASE fix the weight penalties to on- AND offline mode!

I'm kind of a noob when it comes to setups and it's very annoying that you can't just take a hotlap set and alter it to right tyre-wear. In patch X10 you have to work on the whole suspension and things, what drives me crazy.
The even more powerful argument is, that you can't look at hotlap times of the cars to compare their performance in the race. So IMO the hotlaps become some kind of a addon for the nutters who just like hotlapping, but become totally useless for the usual race-driver.

Sorry for my english.

[ORION]

So i did some longruns offline with weight penalty!
After my test I'd say it would nearly work out giving the FZR a penalty of 30-35kg and the XRR a penalty of 10kg... please insert the weight penalty already in the Patch so Hotlapping gonna be the same as OnlineRacing.
so we're almost back to 0/50/100...
reminds me of something hehehehe :D

I also agree to online and offline penalties, cause then it would be easy to calculate the total time differences on all combos, which might make balancing a bit easier (however, this doesnt consider tyre wear, fuel usage etc.)

[DaveWS]

IMO:

GTR's
- The FZR should remain the same as it currently is.
- The XRR and FXR should both have their engines "rebored" as they are racing versions of the road counterparts, and to have a slight increase in capacity through a rebore seems realistic to me (2.3 Litres or so?). This would bring the HP in both cars up a little, to be competitive with the FZR.
- The FZR should still be the fastest GTR over a single hotlap, as it doesn't look after fuel and tyres as well as the XRR.
- I hate the idea of ballast again online.

TBO's
- The RB4 should regain the 18 Kg's it lost after X30.
- The FXO should have more weight, as I should imagine it seems a comfortable family car with air conditioning and other heavy options.
- XRT should remain the same. It's the most difficult to drive, so should have a slight edge.

[Chaos]

- XRT should remain the same. It's the most difficult to drive, so should have a slight edge.
wooot!!! it took some waiting, but finally it seems this issue (http://forum.racesimcentral.com/showthread.php?t=132811) will be solved :thumb:

[DeadWolfBones]

so we're almost back to 0/50/100...
reminds me of something hehehehe :D

:D

[Stigpt]

FXO is still the fastest, even with thinner tires. (round BL1), Followed by the RB4 (can take corners faster) and then, finally the XRT.
RB4 should remain is previous wieght, FXO should gain some 10kgs in front, and the XRT should be 10kgs lighter, in the rear for better balance and greater power to weight.

To have all cars do similar laps, the power-to-wieght should be XRT -> FXO -> RB4.

[agm_ultimatex]

I like the XRR and FXR over the FZR due to the forced induction. One thing though, because the XRR and FXR and set as sequential, shouldnt we be able to use the h shifter still with the G25? As the only way it lets me shift using those cars is with sequential.

[Cue-Ball]

I like the XRR and FXR over the FZR due to the forced induction. One thing though, because the XRR and FXR and set as sequential, shouldnt we be able to use the h shifter still with the G25? As the only way it lets me shift using those cars is with sequential.You can't use an H-shift with a sequential car because H-shift uses 1-2-3-4-5-6 while sequential uses UP-DOWN. If you have a G25, just turn the knob to set it to sequential and make sure that your script for the FXR and XRR are set to use the sequential settings ("set sequential" in the script).

[Rotatox]

the reason i bought the g25 was because of this game, and my fav car is the XRR. Unfortanetely ill be sticking the the lsat version now as i hate sequential, i'd rather stick with H pattern and clutch and be slightly slower than everyone esle in the race, than drive sequential. Im playing this game for the fun factor, and to me, the shifter is a big part of that. I hope at teh very least an option to have H shift is brought in to all the GTR cars. Single seaters can remain sequential. However i'd prefer the rest to at least have a user option :shrug:

[Cue-Ball]

The XRG and XRT both still use H-shift, as does the FZR. It's not like you can never use H-shift in LFS now that the XRR has changed. Just drive the FZR instead of the XRR for races in that class, or spend a little more time driving the XRG/XRT/FZ5/etc.

[Breizh]

Shouldn't it be allowed to willingly take a handicap?

[Rotatox]

The XRG and XRT both still use H-shift, as does the FZR. It's not like you can never use H-shift in LFS now that the XRR has changed. Just drive the FZR instead of the XRR for races in that class, or spend a little more time driving the XRG/XRT/FZ5/etc.

I dont like any of those cars unfortunately. I just prefer the overal speed and feel of the xrr.

I just hope an option is put into the game at least. :nod:

[Woz]

Shouldn't it be allowed to willingly take a handicap?

Yep. This is the key.

If you could select the gearbox in the XXR and FZR it would solve it. Sequential is faster so selecting H in these cars is like a handicap so should be allowed.

Being able to select sequential in the FZR is an advantage so should not be allowed.

[PaulC2K]

Its been taken out because were entering the hardcore era where it doesnt matter what people would prefer if its not realistic. So the XRR gets sequencial and no other option.
I dont like it personally (the attitude, not arsed about the gearbox types specificly) because LFS started by catering for a lot of peoples preferences and they're slowly being removed again. The options which were open to the driver are being removed in the name of realism when theres no harm or in a few cases nothing unrealistic about them staying.

Personally i find some of the enforced changes in the name of realism pathetic while its considered acceptable for people to play the game using a mouse or keyboard... thats realistic. You cant have a H shifter in your XRR, but you can drive around using Q,A < & > no problem. Some things you just wonder what the harm is in leaving them in there.

[agm_ultimatex]

the reason i bought the g25 was because of this game, and my fav car is the XRR. Unfortanetely ill be sticking the the lsat version now as i hate sequential, i'd rather stick with H pattern and clutch and be slightly slower than everyone esle in the race, than drive sequential. Im playing this game for the fun factor, and to me, the shifter is a big part of that. I hope at teh very least an option to have H shift is brought in to all the GTR cars. Single seaters can remain sequential. However i'd prefer the rest to at least have a user option :shrug: Agreed. Also Im saying that I had the h shifter on my setups, but it wouldnt work at all. In patch x i used h gate for every car, except the F1s. I want to do the same

[Rotatox]

I made this specifiacally for the XRR in mind. Ive made the car sound similar to a rotary in teh game, so i used an rx7 interior (being a rotary fanatic). Unfortunately i have to stick to the the old version now so i can get more use out of my cockpit:(

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6638/15122007532pu9.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/1277/15122007534xl4.jpg

[Dark Elite]

Personally i find some of the enforced changes in the name of realism pathetic while its considered acceptable for people to play the game using a mouse or keyboard... thats realistic. You cant have a H shifter in your XRR, but you can drive around using Q,A < & > no problem. Some things you just wonder what the harm is in leaving them in there.The big thing you're missing here (although I do support the view, in principle, that keyboard/mouse drivers are undermining the realism of the game, as are non-FFB wheel users) is cost. It doesn't cost anything to us for the developers to make the game as realistic as they can, but it does cost money for racers to have 'wheels. The developers can't force us to pay for realistic controllers, but they can make the game as close to true racing as possible for those who do want to pay for 'wheels.
Making the game unusable without a 'wheel would remove a huge amount of people coming into S2. I for one bought my DFP purely because of LFS, but there's not a chance I would have done so if I couldn't have tried the game out first, and nor would I have bought it without being able to try S2 first. The 'issue' of keyboard/mouse drivers does seem, I'm afraid, unsolveable.

If you look at AS National public races you will find 70%+ of the field (and usually more) will be FXR's. Even though the FZR, when driven well, is clearly faster. In league races I am sure the mix is very different where the drivers tend to be more interested in outright speed compared to ease of driving.

I am not sure you can ever address this so if you balance, or at least close their lap times towards each other, public races will probably become 90%+ FXR. If you give the RWD an advantage enough to see them used more in public races, league races will become all FZR.

Before we can really balance them we would need to agree on what type of races we were trying to achieve the balance in. I don't think we could ever get agreement on this. Won't it will come down to making the imbalances within tolerable margins more than any real balance. In my mind the goal is to make sure you never see one car dominate the grid.I'm in agreement with this. Over a longer race (in X10), the FZR seems to be used very little, because it punishes mistakes more than an FXR or, to an extent, XRR would. I think it being rear-engined, and thus inherently more dangerous to drive than the other GTRs, does make up for its extra speed. Yes, it can be used in a hotlap scenario, by a mediocre driver, to get better laps than a fast FXR driver - but that's not to say the average FZR driver could get that laptime over and over again.

As I see it, the FXR (in X10) is slower because it is easier and more forgiving, and the XRR is slower than the FZR because it is more manageable. Both of the latter are quicker than the FXR because both are a lot harder to drive consistently. This sort of setup seemed to reward those who took the time to learn the FZR fully, while allowing less experienced drivers to run alongside them in FXRs. Now, with the FZR's handicaps, there's the possibility of those FXR drivers being able to beat more practiced FZR drivers, which doesn't seem to be the way it should work.

Actually, if any class balancing is to be done in GTR from X10, I reckon it should be making the XRR slightly faster. It's a lot harder to drive than the FXR, but doesn't seem to be sufficiently quicker to make up for it.

And now I wait to be contradicted :)

Sam

[R.Kolz]

... Over a longer race (in X10), the FZR seems to be used very little...

Disagree. Have a look once more. IGTC, LeMansLeague, MoE, 24h race. just to name some of the endu leagues. At least 30% of the cars where FZR´s.

[dougie-lampkin]

I made this specifiacally for the XRR in mind. Ive made the car sound similar to a rotary in teh game, so i used an rx7 interior (being a rotary fanatic). Unfortunately i have to stick to the the old version now so i can get more use out of my cockpit:(

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6638/15122007532pu9.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/1277/15122007534xl4.jpg

WOW, that's some cockpit! :nod:

[srdsprinter]

WOW, that's some cockpit! :nod:
Yea, i think you have to let him have the option of manual just bc that is a fantastic cockpit... it needs a roll cage though for the GTR version.

[jayhawk]

I made this specifiacally for the XRR in mind. Ive made the car sound similar to a rotary in teh game, so i used an rx7 interior (being a rotary fanatic). Unfortunately i have to stick to the the old version now so i can get more use out of my cockpit:(



:bananadea

You really need to expand your LFS horizons, so to say. If ScaViEr were to cater to every request, this game would never be done.

I primarily drive the FZR, and that car is punished the worst of the three! Meanwhile, people driving the FXR can merrily bump over curbs and power out of every corner, hamfisted mind you, while the with the FZR you have to be delicate about throttle control.

....Passions. There is nothing logical about them....

[PaulC2K]

And the FZR can go ploughing through gravel traps.
While your being 'delicate' with your throttle control your still going miles quicker than the FXR with or without bumping over curbs etc

FZR is most responsive, in steering & acceleration, which is why its quickest round the majority of tracks (>90% im sure, most by a fair margin too), its not really that hard to drive and it can drive straight out of gravel unharmed unlike the others.

On the other hand you cant mash the throttle & need to shift at the correct times just like all cars, but its slightly more sensitive, and then if your doing ~1h+ races it uses more fuel although tyres wear sooner than a tank empties round tracks on competitive tyres anyway.

So it punishes you if you drive badly, that'll only make it harder for n00bs, and personally that sounds spot on to me because its too easy and too quick and thats why everyone jumps onto it. If only the very best could drive it quick, then im all for them being rewarded for it, but as a self-confessed RWD hater who can drive the FZR considerably faster with an 'easy does it' approach than the FXR (& XRR) it shows even a rwd n00b is quicker in the car supposedly faster because its harder to drive?!? Since when!!?

If people are going to complain about the negative aspects of a car, they should at least consider the benefits of driving it, and likewise for the cars they're comparing against. Im betting the people who've complained about the FZR changes still use the FZR though, and thats usually because its still considerably quicker even with the newly added 'penalties' on there.

For the record, i have no interest in driving the FXR specificly, i've driven considerably more miles in the FZR than FXR & XRR combined since S2 came out and since the X patch too, its an unwanted car thats being heavily punished because its the easiest to drive.

[Breizh]

I made this specifiacally for the XRR in mind. Ive made the car sound similar to a rotary in teh game, so i used an rx7 interior (being a rotary fanatic). Unfortunately i have to stick to the the old version now so i can get more use out of my cockpit:(
Bummer man.. Nice setup, your effort's not all in vain :tilt:

[R.Kolz]

The purpose of this thread is to get the balance right, so hopefully the ballast added after patch Y is minimal.... ....By the way, to others who talk about perfect balancing, that will never happen and it's not the aim. The aim is that some of the cars are better on some tracks and some are better on others. What we don't want is what we had before, FZR the best choice on all tracks regardless of which track you were on.

Since about a week we now have had the chance to have a look at the new Y-balancing. Here are my first impressions:
Looks like the FZR, having lost 80 online kg´s, is still flying all over the tracks followed by the XRR´s which now have become 10kg´s lighter then the FXR´s but use as much fuel as the FXR.
FZR´s still can flatshift over a period of time without getting too much clutch heat.
Tyres:
Sprint races the FZR still is able to do with R2´s, the FXR has to have R3´s in front - racing for more then 2 laps.
I now can agree 100% on PaulC2K´s statements made.
Especially the -30kg XRR contra -20KG FXR but still having the same gearbox doesn´t make any sense to me as the XRR already was the overall faster car of these two cars.
In my oppinion the GTR´s need to get re-balanced for sprint- and short distance races (that´s what we do online racing on public servers day for day) and for endurance races the organizers could balance these cars if they really think it´s necessary and needed.


Sidenote:
I sometimes get minor engine damage at what I call normal downshifting using autoclutch in the FXR. Some people call it an improvement not to be able to repair engine damage.This matter for sure doesn´t make the FXR my first choice for longer races - but that´s a different story...:scratchch

"Engine damage can not be fixed on a pitstop. This probably the single most biggest improvement from Y patch.
FXR - totaled
XRR - totaled
FZR - ~none "
*http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=11421&highlight=engine+damage

What´s your personal oppinion about the new GTR balance so far?

[Ahriman4891]

The balance is weird to say the least. Aside from the identical horsepower and weight (which one could argue comes from the GT class rules in LFS-land), the GTRs also generate exactly equal downforce and drag, and F/R downforce distribution is also within half a percent. There are a lot of variables to play with to make the cars "balanced" (e.g. FZR could have less high-speed stability), but we don't see much of it. I also don't see how mastering the XRR is easier than FZR :shrug:. Don't turbo cars require more attention in general since you have to keep the boost pressure high? IMHO FZR is not THAT much harder. Keep in mind that I'm a noob and drive on the level of "quick" AI in patch Y.

As for FZR complaints, why not just cut down its power and torque? Especially torque, even race-spec 3.9 L flat-6 in Daytona prototypes does not develop 500 Nm, more like 430.

[PaulC2K]

Part of the reason they're 'identical' in their stats is probably down to the fact that the class would be based on a series set of rules, they'd have tight restrictions on every important aspect of the cars design. The other classes of cars are meant to be say a collection of road car which happen to be evenly matched but arent intended to be closely matched in construction. The race cars are basically designed around the rules of a ficticious series, they'll have a limits they'd have to fit into, and thats done to keep the cars evenly matched while the build & spec of the car is done by the individual teams rather than a fixed car (F1 compared to A1GP, or WTCC to Clio cup).
Thats my take on it at least, its obviously not pure co-incidence they're near identical on power/weight stats, so it makes sense to assume they'd be ficticious regulations placed on their class.

Has anyone done a reasonable number of laps in the FZR yet, say 30min straight run or longer? I'll admit i havent, however the car makes a horrendous noise now, maybe its purely the gearbox, but it instantly reminded me of the popcorn days when the engine is on its way out, a noise ive not heard (or dont recall hearing) since S1 came along.
Now, with an important 24hr race coming up in... 3wks, the last thing i wanna see is half the field drop out, and i say that as someone driving an XRR, so im hoping thats just the crappy noise everyone has to put up with, i think that alone should help an XRR win personally, wouldnt wanna listern to that for ~6hrs thats for sure! Its definately not n00bish gearshifting, but i can definately hear it popping away like a mofo.


R.Kolz:
Couldnt agree more on the fact that the cars should be balanced for sprint racing, i remember hearing all the chatter YEARS back about how the various cars were being balanced, how big testing sessions between the devs & testers were being held in endurance races, and wondering WTF they're doing that for. I *love* endurance racing, but i'd wager that maybe 1 in 10,000 races last longer than 60min, and thats how these cars are supposedly being balanced. We're on attempt #3 with the GTR's, still looking completely hopeless, the TBO's a bit better, and i really wonder what goes on in these tests.
For my estimated 1:10,000th race, let the organisers balance the cars as they see fit, in MoE they've been self-balancing for years, awarding different cars a different set of points to try and even things out. So clearly it doesnt work for Endurance racing all that great to begin with. Now their characteristics can be modified manually it should be left to the organisers to enforce their own rules on what is fair, while the other 9,999:10,000 races are ran over 5 laps where the cars are equally quick round a track straight out of the box, sod the fact that one car sucks a tiny bit more fuel over an hour, it makes no difference when the typical race is over within 15min, so 'balanced' it isnt, and thats why nobody in their right mind drives the FXR or XRR in a random server if they actually care about where they finish.
Personally, i couldnt care less about public racing, havent joined a random server for months, possibly over a year (certainly feels like it), they dont interest me a jot, but im not ignorant enough to think they're not where a considerable majority of people spend their time and blissfully ignore it. I'd prefer they were perfectly equal over a few hours, but just like i'd suggest its tough for drifters wanting things perfect for them, they're in the minority and just a small aspect of LFS's community and why its popular. Still, i'd settle for them being balanced any way possible, it'd make a nice change.

[Ahriman4891]

Part of the reason they're 'identical' in their stats is probably down to the fact that the class would be based on a series set of rules, they'd have tight restrictions on every important aspect of the cars design.

Well, as I said in my post, I can buy that for weight/power. But there is no way cars with such different bodywork generate the same L/D. All of them generate 0 lift with the body (huh?) and 3000N drag @ 100 m/s. In reality, FZR would likely create the most lift--so it would require more agressive wing settings to compensate with added downforce, increasing drag and slowing it down. XRR looks like it would generate most drag, but least lift.

Not to mention that a series enforcing identical lift/drag ratios (which is pretty ridiculous), should just enforce a single chassis and be done. Even F1 (which is very strictly regulated) has cars with diff. aero, despite having tons of restrictions on wing width, height, position, etc. I understand that it's probably a temporary measure by Scavier to balance cars while the physics is WIP, but that's the thing -- it doesn't balance anything :x There are threads complaining about FZR since what, 2005?

All I'm saying is there are a lot of subtle ways to balance cars, except for bhp/ton, but sadly we don't see it. Which is sad, since our physics probably allows for much more.

[Dark Elite]

I get the feeling that this close matching between the aerodynamics of the cars is to make balancing them a more simple task, with fewer variables.

It may change, but then again, it's a possibility that the cars were designed with a ficticious series in mind which dicates the lift/drag ratios the car should have with zero wing angle, by making the three cars use different undertrays to compensate for the differences in their bodies' aerodynamic properties - so the very close aerodynamics might be here to stay.

As for tyres on these cars, having run a 20-lap race at AS6, I found that - with my driving style - the FZR was perfectly capable of regulating an R3/R3 tyre setup to an optimum temperature while still going noticeably faster than an FXR which needed an R4/R3 configuration to keep the fronts cool enough to last the race. Having said that, the FXR was being raced by a keyboard driver, so all this really tells us is that the FZR is wearing tyres quite evenly and not at all harshly. In short, the combination of weight distribution and drive to the front is making the FXR far harder on front tyres than the FZR.

It's still debatable whether or not the lower fuel range of the FZR makes up for this - the FZR is getting through roughly 135% of the fuel the FXR does over a given distance, making the FXR's fuel range at AS6 37 laps against the FZR's 27. Personally, I reckon the FZR's fuel consumption is helping to pull it back in line with the other cars in longer races due to the increased pitstops, and in shorter ones due to the increased weight. There's a more subtle balancing method for you ;)

Sam

[dougie-lampkin]

But the weight of an extra 35% fuel load is still not enough to slow down the FZR...we need changes such as reduced engine size and reduced horsepower to really make a difference...and the forced H-pattern doesn't have quite the desired effect. Going into corners, I can heel-toe downshift faster than it takes a sequential box to go down through the gears, which makes up for the slower up-shifts...

[PaulC2K]

The FZR is about 1.5sec a lap faster round AS6, roughly, and being generous too i think.

If the extra pit-stop time is +60sec (fairly reasonable for 4 tyres & full juice-up at most tracks) then the FZR can make that up entirely within 40 laps. So unless the race is between 37 & 40 laps, the FXR must pit, and its pretty much undebatable from that point onwards.
Lap 27 - FZR has a 40sec lead, just before pit #1 (+60)
Lap 28 - FXR is now 18.5 sec ahead
Lap 37 - FXR has a 5sec lead, just before pit #1 (+50, less fuel)
Lap 38 - FZR now leads by 46.5sec
Lap 54 - FZR now leads by 1:10.5 before pit #2 (+60)
Lap 55 - FZR still leads, despite extra pitstop, by 12 sec.

So, if thats correct (it's certainly going to be pretty close), it suggests the FXR doesnt have a hope in hell of beating a FZR unless the race ends moments after the FZR needs to pit. So if it cant beat it over 40 laps, how the hell can anyone expect it to provide competitive racing in shorted length races?? Its just crazy.
Infact, im comparing qualifing type laps, what the FZR & FXR *can* do, ignoring the fact that to get to 37 laps the FXR needs to bolt on harder tyres making it only slower. I've also be generous with the 10sec difference for the comparatively insignificant difference in fuel loading times (2-3sec max), but still the is shown to be a useless option for people wanting to be competitive. If you dont care about being competitive, fair enough, but it seems most people do care but cos they're not bothered about driving it they're not fussed, 'sod em'.


Repeating my previous comments on Fuel economy and its worth as a negative point for the FZR....
Fuel consumption is pretty much an false & misleading statistic, the cars kill they're tyres sooner than they burn through a tank of fuel, so while its more thirsty it currently isnt a limiting factor. So fuel doesnt play a role in strategy, the only thing it effects is car weight and refueling time.
The capacity of all the GTRs is 100 Litres so the weight is the same no mater what car they're in, 1% is an identical measure in the class.

In Patch X:
The FXR/XRR needed about 55-60% to go the distance the R2's allow, thats 57.5 litres.
The FZR needs 70% for the same distance, ignoring whether the tyres can take it that far (probably close, but just short). The weight of 10-15% extra fuel might help the XRR keep up, but the FXR might as well not bother, its a tiny drop in the ocean.
If the R3's werent so slow then maybe they'd be an option, but you lose far more time wearing them than you actually gain by carrying a full tank (also slowing you down slightly)

Unless Y has serious changes where the R3s make a frequent appearance for endurance racing, and the FXR & FZR can utilise the empty 40-45% space in the tank, while the FZR only has 30% in there, then things wont have changed all that much.
I think it'll take a while before things truely settle down after the updates, but you can bet you backside its as unbalanced as ever.

[Dark Elite]

we need changes such as reduced engine size and reduced horsepower to really make a differenceWe might get a smaller, higher-strung engine to lower the torque, but lower power isn't going to happen - if the power limit for the series these cars are designed around is 490bhp, all of the cars are sure as hell going to have 490bhp, or close enough to make no difference.

Infact, im comparing qualifing type laps, what the FZR & FXR *can* do, ignoring the fact that to get to 37 laps the FXR needs to bolt on harder tyres making it only slower.Just a quick note, the FXR that was using R4/R3s in that race was obviously using 0/1 throttle and braking, which means you could probably get the car to cope with R3/R3s over 20 laps or so.

The rest of your post, particularly the scenario with the FXR/FZR race, seems quite accurate. However, it is worth bearing in mind that the FXR is not supposed to be able to compete with the FZR, or indeed the XRR, and is designed as an easier introduction to the power and speed of the GTR class, so that new GTR drivers can cope with the cars in a race situation more easily. The FXR is not meant to be as fast as the other GTRs, and so arguing over class balancing to make the FXR and FZR even is somewhat pointless. Balancing the FZR with the XRR is the point Scawen wants to get at, I think, and the gearbox is the way forward in this one.

So, has anyone run comparisons between the XRR and FZR? Unfortunately I have next to no experience in the XRR myself.

Just to back up what I've said about the FXR: :)
The FXO GTR is the easiest of the GTR cars to drive, thanks to its stable handling and four-wheel drive. Unfortunately it's also the slowest over a single lap. In the hands of a skilled driver it can usually beat most comers, but even the best FXO GTR driver can't catch a well-driven FZ50 GTR or XR GTR in a sprint race. In endurance races the playing field is leveled somewhat, as the FXO GTR is easier on its tires than the other two GTR cars and has superior fuel economy. Ultimately the FXO GTR is a great car for somebody just getting used to the extra power offered by the GTR cars or for somebody who just wants to have some fun in the GTR class, but if you want wins and don't like long races you have to move to one of the rear-wheel drive GTR cars.It [The XRR] likes to eat FXO GTRs for breakfast, so watch out.The second quote, and much of the first, can be found on the main LFS site as well as the Wiki

Sam

[DaveWS]

The XRR and FZR however are very well balanced now in endurance races. The XRR uses less fuel, and is slightly easier on the tyres than the FZR. The FZR now must use R3's to last a reasonable number of laps, which slows the car down obviously in the corners.

[R.Kolz]

Please report here what you find out about the GTR class balancing.
Handicaps have now been removed as the cars should be more naturally balanced now.

Changes in GTR class :

FXO GTR is 20 kg lighter
FZR has an H-pattern gerabox so slightly slower gear shifts
FZR engine is also more limited by its redline so earlier gear shifts

This is post 1 of this thread.
Scawen included the FXR ( FXO GTR ). The WIKI posts are obviously outdated or most of us must have misunderstood Scawens very first post.

[PaulC2K]

The XRR and FZR however are very well balanced now in endurance races. The XRR uses less fuel, and is slightly easier on the tyres than the FZR. The FZR now must use R3's to last a reasonable number of laps, which slows the car down obviously in the corners.
I cant say with any certainty whether or not the XRR needs R3s or if it can manage R2's for a worthwhile distance, so i dont know how it'd compare. The FXR its already been said that definately needs harder tyres on the front, whether thats R3/R2 or R4/R3 i dont know. But from the bit of testing ive done with the GT2 XRR the tyres dont go too far, they're staying much more consistant but the R2's seem to be more of a sprint distance tyre than endurance, so it could be that R3 will become the endurance drivers choice of tyre, which IMO it always should have been, the R2s should be designed for short races, R3s for medium length, and R4s for extreme distances.


Dark Elite:
Im not sure those comments come from any official statement, personally they sound like an opinion, just like me saying R2s are for sprint races, R3s for endurance & R4's if your stupid, it sounds like their take on the situation rather than intentionally making the car so slow its uncompetitive beyond a doubt.


Whether the WIKI info is accurate (to the dev's opinion) or someones personal opinion (pretty much the whole communities opinion probably), IMO there shouldnt be a 'learner' car in any class, if people havent learnt to cope with the bigger cars, then they have the baby GTRs till then, theres no logic in intentionally making a crap car so people can learn to drive the other 2 properly, so for that reason i dont really buy into it being intentionally uncompetitive.
Creating the FOX as a simplified & tamed FO8 i can understand as they're considerably different to what was offered before S2, just as the XFR & UFR or TBOs ease people into FZ5/RAC or GTR cars, but making a signficiantly slower car within a class is backwards, a class should be designed to be different but reasonably equal.
The RB4 isnt the sacrificial car for the TBO class, why would the FXR be?
Also, considering the GTR cars are what the top level series are using to showcase talent, and i suspect thats the developers intentions for it too, it seems bizarre to have such a weak link in there, granted they're the ones who've made it so weak and dont seem to care about fixing that aspect, but i think everyone would rather have 3 closely matched cars (taking everything into account in the process) than what we have now, which is 2 reasonably matched cars and a n00b car. I dont expect it to be a race winner, but it should at least be competitive rather than it pootling around. Drivers should be required to ask themself a question before picking which car to use, do you play it safe and see if it pays off, or go for broke and run the risk of making that small mistake and losing. Thats not what goes through any drivers mind right now, currently its a case of do you want to come last or race with people.

As i say, i dont know what there is to back up those WIKI comments, if they're fact or just common opinion, but it sounds bonkers and nothing like what *i'd* have thought the developers would have intended, like they've over-compensated for it being easy to drive. If it is their opinion, its laughable, and disregards everything ive seen them do in almost 5 years of playing LFS. Its an unloved, unwanted & unbalanced car and its sitting in the main class pretty much going to waste.

[Dark Elite]

This is post 1 of this thread.
Scawen included the FXR ( FXO GTR ). The WIKI posts are obviously outdated or most of us must have misunderstood Scawens very first post.My immediate thought about that is that Scawen doesn't want the FXR to be left too far behind, and so taking the 20kg of ballast out is to match up with the XRR and FZR also losing ballast - in effect, trying to keep the balance between the FXR and the other two more or less equal to how it was before.

IMO there shouldnt be a 'learner' car in any class [...] currently its a case of do you want to come last or race with people.I do agree with you here, and personally I don't think that the fastest (although I wouldn't want to call it 'main', as a lot of people prefer TBOs) class should be burdened with a car for new drivers. Basically, it seems that the quicker drivers are having a third car taken away from them by the needs of the slower drivers. But, as I said, this does come from the main LFS website, the one not open to public editing:
The FXO GTR is a great car for somebody just getting used to the extra power offered by the GTR cars or for somebody who just wants to have some fun in the GTR class, but if you want wins and don't like long races you have to move to one of the rear-wheel drive GTR cars.Whether this description outdated or not, I don't know (the statistics are), which is why Scawen filling us in on his intentions for the GTR class could save a lot of pointless debate. :)

Sam