Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Anti-Rake?

Recommended Posts

I got him on ignore. So I have no clue what he's stating don't need to know either. Not dealing with trolls.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Striker_703 said:

I got him on ignore. So I have no clue what he's stating don't need to know either. Not dealing with trolls.  

 

You may want to look up the definition of trolling.

Telling you that your providing misinformation to the community is not trolling.

It's quite handy when these types of posters add you to the ignore list. It's easier to correct their misinformation without them trying to respond to save face each time.

 

Edited by SIMRACER123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Striker_703 said:

I got him on ignore. So I have no clue what he's stating don't need to know either. Not dealing with trolls.  

 

lol I haven't, yet. But you're the 4th I know of, I think.lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Striker_703 said:

He seemed like a cool person at first. Then the punk and troll came out.   

Yes people generally like other people that always agree with them.

I'm not looking to be cool. I just find people who are continually negative a touch boring.

You get certain posters who post nothing positive and rarely offer anything to aid the community.

They merely come on here to have a moan time and time again, or in the case of one, declares he is leaving the forum seeking attention and then doesn't stop posting.

Sure there are some issues with the game but in general it's a good game.

It's a forum, a place to debate.

Don't want to debate? Stand in your room talking and agreeing with yourself..

And people who hit the ignore button is quite handy , if they post an argument that makes no sense i can simply respond pointing out the flaws in your/their comment and they then can't defend their point.

That's the difference. If i was attempting to troll i would want a reply. I don't really care if they reply or not so the ignore function suits me more than them as it saves having to read more comments that make little sense.

But let's keep this on topic and remind people who come here seeking rake advice that the rake ride heights on this game are correct unlike the misleading information being given out here by some claiming its back to front.

Edited by SIMRACER123
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 3:33 AM, SIMRACER123 said:

Ok perhaps try again dalerossi...

I will simplify it it for you in summary so you can understand.

Striker claimed it is quicker to run with a higher front end on the game as the setting on the game is back to front. 

I disagreed and pointed out the ride heights in the game are correct as per real life F1 cars so there is no bug.

Do yourself a favour and try reading content properly as it just reduces any credibility you had.

 

No, that's not what he said. He said it just shows up that way. RIF.

Again, real life F1 cars do no run a higher front than rear. End of story. And you wonder why so many people continue to block you. 

  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 1:02 PM, Striker_703 said:

He seemed like a cool person at first. Then the punk and troll came out.   

Arrogance and ignorance are not a good mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, DaleRossi said:

No, that's not what he said. He said it just shows up that way. RIF.

Again, real life F1 cars do no run a higher front than rear. End of story. And you wonder why so many people continue to block you. 

@DaleRossi

I say this as simply as i can for you.

I always said real life F1 cars do not run a higher front end than a rear end.

Somehow you have got it in your head i said they did. 

He claimed it was quicker to run the car nose pointing upwards on the game. I disagreed.

Feel free to read the thread next time before diving in with comments that make no sense in future.

 

 

Edited by SIMRACER123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Follow this link @DaleRossi. This will explain everything on the ride height glitch that I was speaking of in Gran Turismo 5 and 6. If there's something wrong with the physic model when it come to aerodynamic a ride height, the glitch may show it. What a second! Kalamazoo123? LOL 

 https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/ride-height-glitch-returns-in-gt6.305070/

 

Edited by Striker_703

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This definitely was a thing back in F1 2013. High front (anti-rake) gave ridiculous grip. (11-2) so I can totally see that it might be the case.

Might I just add, I've always hated the setup values in the F1 series, because they are not definitive (and it confuses people even when it is, see the 'camber argument' so why does everyone run minimum camber when theoretically maximum camber - more negative, should give more corner grip?)

That aside (please don't start a flame war, it's tiresome; see what I did there?), the larger problem is that the 1-11 value system is fairly busted. Actual real world values are given in other titles, so why oh why Codemasters don't give this option, then we could actually argue when they are clearly wrong.

Because their games are bug free, aren't they? 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i find a little frustrating with the set up is some cars have a high rake like the Renault/Red Bull etc and others are considerably flatter i.e Mercedes and McLaren.

And yet when you first go to the set up menu for standard set up, the ride height shows as level. Something like 6 and 6.

This is misleading as it then gives the impression all cars are level when in the case of the Red Bull/Renault it isn't by design.

In theory the preset ride height for each car should reflect each car to avoid confusion.

I.e standard set up for Red Bull would be 5/6 whereas Mercedes would be 6/6 so at least you know where your starting from set up wise.

It may well be that actually what you see visually on screen ( how the car looks rake wise on the game ) makes no difference and all cars are the same from a ride height set up perspective but if thats the case it would be handy if codemasters communicated this.

For example the Red Bull in theory already runs with a higher rear end and therefore more drag, so it would be good to know rather than having to second guess everything before adding more rake to a set up.

This is the issue with codemasters set up's. 

Taking Red Bull as an example, it has a high rake in real life.

Lets say the preset standard 6/6 keeps it pointing down at the front as thats the way its designed, does 7/6 ride height then mean its level?

Mercedes then is level by design so a ride height of 6/6 would be level. So does that mean that 7/6 on this car mean its driving around with its nose in the air?

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, steviejay69 said:

This definitely was a thing back in F1 2013. High front (anti-rake) gave ridiculous grip. (11-2) so I can totally see that it might be the case.

Might I just add, I've always hated the setup values in the F1 series, because they are not definitive (and it confuses people even when it is, see the 'camber argument' so why does everyone run minimum camber when theoretically maximum camber - more negative, should give more corner grip?)

That aside (please don't start a flame war, it's tiresome; see what I did there?), the larger problem is that the 1-11 value system is fairly busted. Actual real world values are given in other titles, so why oh why Codemasters don't give this option, then we could actually argue when they are clearly wrong.

Because their games are bug free, aren't they? 

Mostly in TT, the camber settings do not make much sense as the tyre temp's  are a constant 100c. In saying that though people have an issue with camber being set to a minimum when in fact if you look at the settings there is a mere 1 degree of movement in the CM games, which is not very much.  I agree with you though, CM simply dont have their physics engine on par with anything else hence no real world numbers to go by. The fact that you have people going 2 - 3 seconds faster than real life qualy times sais it all really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst running in TT's @SimracerGysepythere complete tire model isn't in use. The tire temperature doesn't fluctuate as they do in career mode, multiplayer and so on. That's something that must be addressed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Striker_703 said:

Kalamazoo123 LOL

Geeze..SimTroller123 can't be that predictable, can he? Lmao

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is what it is. Did you follow the link? The ride height glitch happened twice in Gran Turismo. It happened with a model change. I have yet to test 2018 so I'm not sure if there was a model change. I've on vacation. I should be having fun racing and not testing code. I'm not at work lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Striker_703 said:

Whilst running in TT's @SimracerGysepythere complete tire model isn't in use. The tire temperature doesn't fluctuate as they do in career mode, multiplayer and so on. That's something that must be addressed.  

Absolutely, TT should have full sim damage, full tyre deg and tyre temp fluctuations. Going off the racing line also should have more concequences. Seeing some if these world record attemps and esports guys, literally spending more time over the white line than inside is ridiculous. First corner in Australia comes to mind. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Striker_703 said:

It is what it is. Did you follow the link? The ride height glitch happened twice in Gran Turismo. It happened with a model change. I have yet to test 2018 so I'm not sure if there was a model change. I've on vacation. I should be having fun racing and not testing code. I'm not at work lol. 

I don't really know why your still going on about this.

Wanting to test a codemasters F1 game for a glitch that occured on a completely different game made by a completely different company using a different code? 

I'm entirely sure what you are hoping to test ?

The time trial leaderboard is indicative of what the best exploitable set ups there are or any glitches.

You don't really need to do the testing. It's already been done for you.

 

Edited by SIMRACER123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you @SimracerGysepy, but you got to remember though. This is the first year Codemasters started to really engulf, tackle simulation models. And from the start they did it right way. Bring in a outside expert. And the first model they see to be the most important to work on first is tires. Kunos did the same thing. Look at that dev company now. I'm looking forward to seeing what they can do. Polyphony hit the street tire model out of the park. GONE!!! If you have a street car in the latest title and you're able to drive it in anger in a safe area. Then do the same in GTS, you will be SHOCKED. It's that good. Oh one other. Did you forget that Codemasters has a former Formula race driver on the team? Just asking. Back to the glitch. It there is a ride height glitch it shouldn't be hard to find out when it happened. Just look at the set's, date of the time and the last patch. And go from there. Who up for it? I'm not. I've dealt with that many years ago. I'm worried becoming one best in the world LOL.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×