Cars Porsche 911 (993) Turbo 1.1
- Thread starter A3DR
- Start date
Body lean is different from rolling.While I know this is a C2 and the ARBs are slightly smaller, they're not smaller enough to really visibly affect the roll. Same with the springs. So I'd have to somewhat disagree with the notion of the cars not rolling.
View attachment 336937
Every car has lean.
Rolling is movement across the axle and back again to the side where it started initially.
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
Rolling is chassis rotation along the specified axis measured in degrees per G. You'd also wanna factor in tire roll to the equation to get your true roll amount.
Dunno what else you're referring to. Maybe give a more concrete example, with actual terms I can understand. What are you talking about, jacking moment, thrust angle, what?
@Timepech OG Do you seriously think it's intelligent to ask for support in a review? I don't know what's wrong with your PC but the car obviously works for everybody else. Thanks for the 1*, jerk.
What in the **** is wrong with people?
What in the **** is wrong with people?
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
Terry's terminology is wholly incorrect and confusing, but I'm pretty sure now when I read Jason's post that he is talking about jacking moment in transition very likely via front rebound over-damping.
Based on my understanding of the situation, those issues will probably be fixed for the next version once we get it done. Including the pitching and transition rolling behavior.
Based on my understanding of the situation, those issues will probably be fixed for the next version once we get it done. Including the pitching and transition rolling behavior.
LOL I was going to reply with a lot of ****** to that ******* but it was worth jack ****, add some more ****** to that!
Instead, reported the out of place comment and got deleted. Now if this guy comes back to post here, all I have to say is: go **** yourself. ****!
PD: for those who didn't notice, that guy posted a 1 star review just because he messed up and the car wouldn't work on his computer for some reason I don't even care.
Much appreciated... but don't rate things to balance the force, rate them as you see them. I'm not a "5* OR ELSE" guy.
The thing for me is, I interpret a rating as a user's "final verdict" on the mod, so stuff like "1*, doesn't work" is as irrelevant to me as "5*, haven't driven yet but it looks amazing." If there are issues (and it's a pre-1.0 release so we're more or less telling you there will be some issues) this thread is where those belong. That's all.
The thing for me is, I interpret a rating as a user's "final verdict" on the mod, so stuff like "1*, doesn't work" is as irrelevant to me as "5*, haven't driven yet but it looks amazing." If there are issues (and it's a pre-1.0 release so we're more or less telling you there will be some issues) this thread is where those belong. That's all.
I see we've both run completely out of patience for that stuff.
No more f***s to give.
I know how you feel. Considering we get pretty much nothing for this beyond the goodwill and gratitude of the community, the bad reviews and insults and shade really start to wear on you after a while. (Despite the fact that only maybe 3% of the community is responsible for it.)
I think people lose sight of the fact that we're hobbyists and we're trying to have fun doing this, even if we present such professional-caliber work in the end that it seems like we're actual developers.
I think people lose sight of the fact that we're hobbyists and we're trying to have fun doing this, even if we present such professional-caliber work in the end that it seems like we're actual developers.
I am using a G29 and ffb strength in your Porsches felt very light to me. Especially at the center... Same for the Porsches in your NFS pack... I generally use FFB gain at 60 while keeping the per-car-FFBs at 100 from the ffb app. Other cars don't feel this light at these values. Other than that, nice mod. Thanks for sharing.
Well, that's why the FFB multiplier is per-car adjustable. The shape of the FFB force is always the same (nothing I can do to change it other than altering the geometry, which I won't do because it would be wrong) so just turn it up until it feels right to you. That's not "cheating" or anything.
Planning to bump it a little bit in the next release anyway... not massively, but maybe ~8-10%.
Planning to bump it a little bit in the next release anyway... not massively, but maybe ~8-10%.
Last edited:
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
We need to remember that these are powersteering cars. None of that exists in AC. The force multiplier is consistent between all of them, so will the forces be. It's okay to press num-+ to account for your taste or setup: the values are just generalist values and aren't ideal most of the time, because even small setup changes influence what it should be IMO.
I've always wondered what is the reason for this happening in some of the cars in ac. I guess it's not the case of incorrect suspension travel or any kind of inaccuracy in the model. Does it have anything to do with how the bumpstops are simulated in ac? What would happen irl? Would the suspension just break?
The track is Monza '66
Btw, I think the collider should sit a little bit lower. You can see the rear bumper sinking.
The track is Monza '66
Btw, I think the collider should sit a little bit lower. You can see the rear bumper sinking.
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
Here's a bumpstop curve from a Sachs stop.
As you see, it's somewhat linear until 20mm or so, then starts to sharply rise. We don't have bumpstop curves in vanilla AC, so that rise isn't doable. The suspension is several times too soft on large compressions.
Yeah... the wheels-through-the-body thing has always been a challenge in AC. I more than occasionally end up tweaking bumpstop rates, ride heights, and visual heights by a few mm (nm) here or there trying to minimize it without screwing up the physics too much. Depends how big a problem it is.
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
What I do is try to get it right with colliders. Somehow in all my 911s I've been able to get by without moving the chassis-stop more down. In the 993, it might be needed to artificially cut off some distance from the chassis stops, to introduce the stiff rate earlier.
With DWB, your packer is the specified rate, and so is the chassis stop. But Strut's packer is as you'd expect, but the chassis stop is 520k IIRC. Some kind of in-built "stiff rate", so you can use it to at least make the front better. But not the rear. Axle's stops don't even work at all.
It's a shame and super dumb because if you could just introduce multiple points where different rates come into play, or a curve in vanilla, there'd be less issue.
