Welcome to the brand new Codemasters Forums! Be sure to check the FAQ and Forum Rules before you get started.

[DiRT 4] Constructive feedback on the subject of car-feel and physics: The Ultimate Thread

1959698100101107

Comments

  • PorkhammerPorkhammer Member Champion
                                                                                                                                                     

    "it's the decisions you make, when you have no time to make them, that define who you are"
  • fab1701fab1701 Member Wheel Nut
    edited July 17
    hawku0 said:
    [...]

    I have posted telemetry outputs from the Dirt 4 where the data shows that cars on Dirt 4 stop faster on gravel than a Le Mans Prototype cars on tarmac.

    It is the time you to provide the data which shows that the Dirt 4's physics are correct and stop arguing the feelings of how the real life car handles.

    [...]
    Yeah, don't get me wrong, not trying to diminish your point, but I don't see that the braking is that far off from RL tbh. After all, we have absolutely no data about what is actually realistic in these conditions, like you say is necessary. What we really need is a set of real data that supports this. The videos posted with telemetry are fine, nothing wrong about them, but the issue is, that those drivers never brake at full capacity or to a full stop, because you don't do it when you're racing. Also, they're driving very smoothly to be fast and therefore the g-forces shown in the telemetry might not be the maximum ones that can occur.
    The best data we have so far, derives from the videos I posted a while ago, where I calculated a maximum deceleration of 1g from. And keep in mind that these were bakkies with ABS and a modified Iveco truck, which is still far off from the capabilities of a lightweight rally car.

    Here is a video from the Team O'Neil rally school about braking, that describes many things to keep in mind about different braking techniques in general and on loose surfaces (It's quite long though, but the important part about gravel comes straight ahead at 5:00 to at least 11:00):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V49TxR4-K90
     
    At 10:20 he makes a guess about braking distances on gravel. Granted, this again is not the data we are looking for, because he himself says that this isn't necessarily correct, but the funny thing is, that 80mph to 0mph in 100m would lead to a deceleration of around 1.32g (EDIT: it's 0.65g). I think the median g-forces in Dirt 4 under braking on gravel are about 1.4+ g atm like the telemetry shows? Not a huge difference imo, even considering that I'm not quite sure if he means road cars in general or actually high performing rally vehicles in the video.



    Post edited by fab1701 on
  • hawku0hawku0 Member Wheel Nut
    fab1701 said:
    hawku0 said:
    [...]

    I have posted telemetry outputs from the Dirt 4 where the data shows that cars on Dirt 4 stop faster on gravel than a Le Mans Prototype cars on tarmac.

    It is the time you to provide the data which shows that the Dirt 4's physics are correct and stop arguing the feelings of how the real life car handles.

    [...]
    Yeah, don't get me wrong, not trying to diminish your point, but I don't see that the braking is that far off from RL tbh. After all, we have absolutely no data about what is actually realistic in these conditions, like you say is necessary. What we really need is a set of real data that supports this. The videos posted with telemetry are fine, nothing wrong about them, but the issue is, that those drivers never brake at full capacity or to a full stop, because you don't do it when you're racing. Also, they're driving very smoothly to be fast and therefore the g-forces shown in the telemetry might not be the maximum ones that can occur.
    The best data we have so far, derives from the videos I posted a while ago, where I calculated a maximum deceleration of 1g from. And keep in mind that these were bakkies with ABS and a modified Iveco truck, which is still far off from the capabilities of a lightweight rally car.

    Here is a video from the Team O'Neil rally school about braking, that describes many things to keep in mind about different braking techniques in general and on loose surfaces (It's quite long though, but the important part about gravel comes straight ahead at 5:00 to at least 11:00):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V49TxR4-K90
     
    At 10:20 he makes a guess about braking distances on gravel. Granted, this again is not the data we are looking for, because he himself says that this isn't necessarily correct, but the funny thing is, that 80mph to 0mph in 100m would lead to a deceleration of around 1.32g. I think the median g-forces in Dirt 4 under braking on gravel are about 1.4+ g atm like the telemetry shows? Not a huge difference imo, even considering that I'm not quite sure if he means road cars in general or actually high performing rally vehicles in the video.
    I don't know how you calculated the 1.32 g's, but the more correct number would be around 0.65 g's, if the stopping distance from 80 mph to 0 is 100 meters and the deacceleration is constant.
    Stopping distance from 60 mph to 0 is between 20 and 25 meters in Dirt 4.

    If anybody still thinks that cars should stop faster on gravel than on asphalt, then you should read this:
    https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/ca/capubs/NHTSAabsT4FinalRpt.pdf
    Of course the cars on that test aren't rally cars, but difference of grip still shouldn't be reversed.
  • Madhun1967Madhun1967 Member Wheel Nut
    LMAO thats a good one . I hope its either 1 or 2! 
  • FjacobsenFjacobsen Member New Car Smell
    I´m not sure, but the RWD Opel Manta and Kadett feels more tail happy after the 1.05 Patch, not like in DR, but thats also known to be a tad too tail happy.
    I also noticed that the onscreen stage notes now included a grey box with distances, which I have not noticed before.

    So maybe this patch included more than just support for higher no. of CPU cores.

    But maybe it´s just placebo...
  • fab1701fab1701 Member Wheel Nut
    edited July 17
    hawku0 said:
    fab1701 said:
    hawku0 said:
    [...]

    I have posted telemetry outputs from the Dirt 4 where the data shows that cars on Dirt 4 stop faster on gravel than a Le Mans Prototype cars on tarmac.

    It is the time you to provide the data which shows that the Dirt 4's physics are correct and stop arguing the feelings of how the real life car handles.

    [...]
    Yeah, don't get me wrong, not trying to diminish your point, but I don't see that the braking is that far off from RL tbh. After all, we have absolutely no data about what is actually realistic in these conditions, like you say is necessary. What we really need is a set of real data that supports this. The videos posted with telemetry are fine, nothing wrong about them, but the issue is, that those drivers never brake at full capacity or to a full stop, because you don't do it when you're racing. Also, they're driving very smoothly to be fast and therefore the g-forces shown in the telemetry might not be the maximum ones that can occur.
    The best data we have so far, derives from the videos I posted a while ago, where I calculated a maximum deceleration of 1g from. And keep in mind that these were bakkies with ABS and a modified Iveco truck, which is still far off from the capabilities of a lightweight rally car.

    Here is a video from the Team O'Neil rally school about braking, that describes many things to keep in mind about different braking techniques in general and on loose surfaces (It's quite long though, but the important part about gravel comes straight ahead at 5:00 to at least 11:00):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V49TxR4-K90
     
    At 10:20 he makes a guess about braking distances on gravel. Granted, this again is not the data we are looking for, because he himself says that this isn't necessarily correct, but the funny thing is, that 80mph to 0mph in 100m would lead to a deceleration of around 1.32g. I think the median g-forces in Dirt 4 under braking on gravel are about 1.4+ g atm like the telemetry shows? Not a huge difference imo, even considering that I'm not quite sure if he means road cars in general or actually high performing rally vehicles in the video.
    I don't know how you calculated the 1.32 g's, but the more correct number would be around 0.65 g's, if the stopping distance from 80 mph to 0 is 100 meters and the deacceleration is constant.
    Stopping distance from 60 mph to 0 is between 20 and 25 meters in Dirt 4.

    If anybody still thinks that cars should stop faster on gravel than on asphalt, then you should read this:
    https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/ca/capubs/NHTSAabsT4FinalRpt.pdf
    Of course the cars on that test aren't rally cars, but difference of grip still shouldn't be reversed.
    Yes, overlooked a factor (mph should be banned, metric is so much better and doesn't lead to this...). It's 0.65g indeed. But as he said, this isn't necessarily correct and depends on the surface (still, then tends to support your argument ;)). Also, what about the bakkies with ABS that got to 1g? Checked these calculations too by the way, nothing wrong there.

    EDIT: What we need to be sure, is data from actual rally cars on different surfaces, all of which can be defined as gravel.

    Post edited by fab1701 on
  • NarzugonNarzugon Member Wheel Nut
    edited July 17
    Slowish said:
    There are a few ways this can go as I see it:
    • CM can refine the default setups - perhaps satisfying some Sim players
    • CM can diagnose and solve some deeper underlying issues related to physics / assists / data, etc. - perhaps resulting in something more realistic between DR and the current D4 handling , something I suspect many of us would enjoy 



    I can understand CM giving a vague statement to the Car Setup/Game Physics debate and it taking some time to look into. I'm sure it's a very slippery slope to navigate. But we're approaching 2 months after release and today's update hasn't addressed some of the simpler issues such as pace note calls and AI times. I don't understand how a CPU update was more urgent.

    Along the same lines and back on topic, with this debate being such a big thing on the interwebs, I really expected quicker action in the form of information at least.

    If they think everything is good with tunings and physics they could provide information to help the masses tune and or drive these cars the way they were intended.

    If they agree that there is a problem, at this point (nearly 2 months after release) information on at least a game plan going forward would be helpful.

    From a consumer's view, post launch reviews paints a negative picture which means a dent in future sales. Communication is key in my opinion. Then again, I'm just a consumer and don't know all the variables.

    Post edited by Narzugon on
  • SamRWDSamRWD Member Petrol Head
    Probably CPU upgrade was much easier and straightforward to do.
  • SkiddyMcCrashSkiddyMcCrash Member Champion
    Gordouxk said:
    I didn't know that multi account was a banable offence. I think I have one more account on here which I used a few years ago but I can't remember the password and I closed the email to which it was linked. So I set up another one, otherwise how do I post anything here.
    Did you really? What was that accounts name?

    AMD FX-8350@4.5Ghz/EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2/16gb RAM/OS - Win 10/Turtle Beach X11/360pad                                 View - Front Bumper Cam/No Assists



  • hawku0hawku0 Member Wheel Nut
    fab1701 said:
    hawku0 said:
    fab1701 said:
    hawku0 said:
    [...]

    I have posted telemetry outputs from the Dirt 4 where the data shows that cars on Dirt 4 stop faster on gravel than a Le Mans Prototype cars on tarmac.

    It is the time you to provide the data which shows that the Dirt 4's physics are correct and stop arguing the feelings of how the real life car handles.

    [...]
    Yeah, don't get me wrong, not trying to diminish your point, but I don't see that the braking is that far off from RL tbh. After all, we have absolutely no data about what is actually realistic in these conditions, like you say is necessary. What we really need is a set of real data that supports this. The videos posted with telemetry are fine, nothing wrong about them, but the issue is, that those drivers never brake at full capacity or to a full stop, because you don't do it when you're racing. Also, they're driving very smoothly to be fast and therefore the g-forces shown in the telemetry might not be the maximum ones that can occur.
    The best data we have so far, derives from the videos I posted a while ago, where I calculated a maximum deceleration of 1g from. And keep in mind that these were bakkies with ABS and a modified Iveco truck, which is still far off from the capabilities of a lightweight rally car.

    Here is a video from the Team O'Neil rally school about braking, that describes many things to keep in mind about different braking techniques in general and on loose surfaces (It's quite long though, but the important part about gravel comes straight ahead at 5:00 to at least 11:00):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V49TxR4-K90
     
    At 10:20 he makes a guess about braking distances on gravel. Granted, this again is not the data we are looking for, because he himself says that this isn't necessarily correct, but the funny thing is, that 80mph to 0mph in 100m would lead to a deceleration of around 1.32g. I think the median g-forces in Dirt 4 under braking on gravel are about 1.4+ g atm like the telemetry shows? Not a huge difference imo, even considering that I'm not quite sure if he means road cars in general or actually high performing rally vehicles in the video.
    I don't know how you calculated the 1.32 g's, but the more correct number would be around 0.65 g's, if the stopping distance from 80 mph to 0 is 100 meters and the deacceleration is constant.
    Stopping distance from 60 mph to 0 is between 20 and 25 meters in Dirt 4.

    If anybody still thinks that cars should stop faster on gravel than on asphalt, then you should read this:
    https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/ca/capubs/NHTSAabsT4FinalRpt.pdf
    Of course the cars on that test aren't rally cars, but difference of grip still shouldn't be reversed.
    Yes, overlooked a factor (mph should be banned, metric is so much better and doesn't lead to this...). It's 0.65g indeed. But as he said, this isn't necessarily correct and depends on the surface (still, then tends to support your argument ;)). Also, what about the bakkies with ABS that got to 1g? Checked these calculations too by the way, nothing wrong there.

    EDIT: What we need to be sure, is data from actual rally cars on different surfaces, all of which can be defined as gravel.



    Yes, the stopping rate for the GWM Steed 6 would be 0.98 g's, if the speedometer indicates 100% accurate speed and the driver started braking when the speedometer is at 80 km/h. 

    Most cars do have about 10% speedometer error because it is illegal to speedometer to indicate lower speed than the actual speed and to allow installation of larger wheels. Maximum allowed speedometer error is 110% + 4 kmh, which would mean about 70 km/h actual speed when the speedometer indicates 80 km/h.
    If the actual speed was 70 km/h, the deceleration rate would be 0.75 g's. Half way of those speeds at 75 km/h, the stopping rate would be 0.86 g's, which would translates to 100 km/h to 0 in 3.28 seconds and 45.7 meters.

    It looked like the ABS was off in the GWM test or the ABS did somehow allow the wheels to lock up.
    I wouldn't call that test very accurate, but it's better than nothing.
  • fab1701fab1701 Member Wheel Nut
    hawku0 said:
    fab1701 said:
    hawku0 said:
    fab1701 said:
    hawku0 said:
    [...]

    I have posted telemetry outputs from the Dirt 4 where the data shows that cars on Dirt 4 stop faster on gravel than a Le Mans Prototype cars on tarmac.

    It is the time you to provide the data which shows that the Dirt 4's physics are correct and stop arguing the feelings of how the real life car handles.

    [...]
    Yeah, don't get me wrong, not trying to diminish your point, but I don't see that the braking is that far off from RL tbh. After all, we have absolutely no data about what is actually realistic in these conditions, like you say is necessary. What we really need is a set of real data that supports this. The videos posted with telemetry are fine, nothing wrong about them, but the issue is, that those drivers never brake at full capacity or to a full stop, because you don't do it when you're racing. Also, they're driving very smoothly to be fast and therefore the g-forces shown in the telemetry might not be the maximum ones that can occur.
    The best data we have so far, derives from the videos I posted a while ago, where I calculated a maximum deceleration of 1g from. And keep in mind that these were bakkies with ABS and a modified Iveco truck, which is still far off from the capabilities of a lightweight rally car.

    Here is a video from the Team O'Neil rally school about braking, that describes many things to keep in mind about different braking techniques in general and on loose surfaces (It's quite long though, but the important part about gravel comes straight ahead at 5:00 to at least 11:00):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V49TxR4-K90
     
    At 10:20 he makes a guess about braking distances on gravel. Granted, this again is not the data we are looking for, because he himself says that this isn't necessarily correct, but the funny thing is, that 80mph to 0mph in 100m would lead to a deceleration of around 1.32g. I think the median g-forces in Dirt 4 under braking on gravel are about 1.4+ g atm like the telemetry shows? Not a huge difference imo, even considering that I'm not quite sure if he means road cars in general or actually high performing rally vehicles in the video.
    I don't know how you calculated the 1.32 g's, but the more correct number would be around 0.65 g's, if the stopping distance from 80 mph to 0 is 100 meters and the deacceleration is constant.
    Stopping distance from 60 mph to 0 is between 20 and 25 meters in Dirt 4.

    If anybody still thinks that cars should stop faster on gravel than on asphalt, then you should read this:
    https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/ca/capubs/NHTSAabsT4FinalRpt.pdf
    Of course the cars on that test aren't rally cars, but difference of grip still shouldn't be reversed.
    Yes, overlooked a factor (mph should be banned, metric is so much better and doesn't lead to this...). It's 0.65g indeed. But as he said, this isn't necessarily correct and depends on the surface (still, then tends to support your argument ;)). Also, what about the bakkies with ABS that got to 1g? Checked these calculations too by the way, nothing wrong there.

    EDIT: What we need to be sure, is data from actual rally cars on different surfaces, all of which can be defined as gravel.



    Yes, the stopping rate for the GWM Steed 6 would be 0.98 g's, if the speedometer indicates 100% accurate speed and the driver started braking when the speedometer is at 80 km/h. 

    Most cars do have about 10% speedometer error because it is illegal to speedometer to indicate lower speed than the actual speed and to allow installation of larger wheels. Maximum allowed speedometer error is 110% + 4 kmh, which would mean about 70 km/h actual speed when the speedometer indicates 80 km/h.
    If the actual speed was 70 km/h, the deceleration rate would be 0.75 g's. Half way of those speeds at 75 km/h, the stopping rate would be 0.86 g's, which would translates to 100 km/h to 0 in 3.28 seconds and 45.7 meters.

    It looked like the ABS was off in the GWM test or the ABS did somehow allow the wheels to lock up.
    I wouldn't call that test very accurate, but it's better than nothing.
    Yes I can agree with that. I still think that a rally car could perform better though considering the massive differences to these bakkies featured, question is how much is really possible and even more important, what is possible on the exact surfaces featured in Dirt4? Until there is any real data, that is reliable and fits to both, the cars as well as the conditions, I think we have no real choice but to accept how it is now. Yes, it might be on the grippy side, but we don't know the data on which it is based. I don't think that they just made a guess on this. This doesn't mean that there is no error involved though.

    I will continue searching to find anything that is usable, but maybe it is just enough to point out that there might be something weird going on with the braking, that seems to be worth taking a look at from our perspective. At least considering that the wheels do not lock up properly. About the braking distances itself... I wouldn't bet on this without any data. Looking at normal everyday road cars with all season tires or something sure, then I'm definitely on your side. But talking about rally cars... I just don't know.
  • SamRWDSamRWD Member Petrol Head
    edited July 18
    I posted at least one onboard with a car we have in a game, from a rally we have in game, and in conditions we have in a game. It was low resolution, but you could clearly see when speed drops below 100 km/h (speedometer read drops into two digits) when Colin brakes into tight right hand corner. He doesn't even brake to full stop and it still takes him much more time and distance. 
Sign In or Register to comment.