Cars Virtua Simulazioni Toyota GT-One 2017-09-22

[Michael Hornbuckle]

The Good:
No crazy oscillations on my T300. Default set has understeer, but nothing crazy IMO. Sounds are very good, car is fun to drive.
The Not so Good:
Errors -
INIReader: content/cars/toyota_ts020/data/suspensions.ini > KEY_NOT_FOUND: [FRONT] RIM_OFFSET
INIReader: content/cars/toyota_ts020/data/suspensions.ini > KEY_NOT_FOUND: [FRONT] RIM_OFFSET
INIReader: content/cars/toyota_ts020/data/suspensions.ini > KEY_NOT_FOUND: [REAR] RIM_OFFSET
INIReader: content/cars/toyota_ts020/data/tyres.ini > KEY_NOT_FOUND: [REAR] SHORT_NAME
INIReader: content/cars/toyota_ts020/data/suspensions.ini > KEY_NOT_FOUND: [REAR] RIM_OFFSET
INIReader: content/cars/toyota_ts020/data/tyres.ini > KEY_NOT_FOUND: [REAR] SHORT_NAME
INIReader: content/cars/toyota_ts020/data/digital_instruments.ini > KEY_NOT_FOUND: [ITEM_0] PREFIX
INIReader: content/cars/toyota_ts020/data/digital_instruments.ini > KEY_NOT_FOUND: [ITEM_0] POSTFIX
INIReader: content/cars/toyota_ts020/data/tyres.ini > KEY_NOT_FOUND: [REAR] SHORT_NAME
INIReader: content/cars/toyota_ts020/data/tyres.ini > KEY_NOT_FOUND: [REAR] SHORT_NAME

 

[dreamer]

Michael how you get that lod info in CM ?

 

[ltcars]

I think you might want to check the collider, as it looks it is tilted by 90°

 

[Michael Hornbuckle]

Michael how you get that lod info in CM ?

click on 'Analyze' at the bottom

 

[dreamer]

yeah i have but i'm not getting the lod info, only the info for pit stops?

 

[CC]

View attachment 212979
I think you might want to check the collider, as it looks it is tilted by 90°

Wow I have never seen that before , speechless , good luck racing online .....

 

[David Dominguez]

It does seem to be lacking a large amount of downforce if this website is anything to go by. I realise this is the 98 car and that data is the 99 car but in-game this car seems to have about 2CL max whereas that data suggests the 99 car had around 3.2CL, granted there is always development between years but a 50% gain in downforce is doubtful.

Also the understeer is because the aero balance is stuck in the 20-30% range no matter what you do to the ride heights or rear wing (only had a quick play but did all the obvious things).

+1

 

[aphidgod]

I don't have a problem at all with the understeer but maybe that's just from all those laps in old Can Am cars with similar aero balance.

I tend to prefer a bit of understeer in general, too, so I guess it suits me.

The one thing that stood out to me in a few quick laps was the rear bump steer... the curve is awfully steep. I'm not certain it's wrong, but it looks suspect. (I don't know much about these cars, so, forgive me if I'm just being a bit 'road car.' )

 

[CC]

I don't have a problem at all with the understeer but maybe that's just from all those laps in old Can Am cars with similar aero balance.

I tend to prefer a bit of understeer in general, too, so I guess it suits me.

The one thing that stood out to me in a few quick laps was the rear bump steer... the curve is awfully steep. I'm not certain it's wrong, but it looks suspect. (I don't know much about these cars, so, forgive me if I'm just being a bit 'road car.' )

To be honest I cant feel any understeer at all , with my mouse or keyboard

 

[eboo]

Close to perfect- nice modeling with great numbers of poly. Some phys to fix +some geo,easy to fix:

 

[AccAkut]

View attachment 212979
I think you might want to check the collider, as it looks it is tilted by 90°

it appears like that in the CM viewer if the collider was done in Blender, For whatever reason its displayed like that while working as intended ingame.

Another point, probably related to the aero balance, is that the AI tends to overshoot and run off track in corners, very prominently in the long T2 right hand sweeper at Vallelunga.

@Michael Hornbuckle how did you get that "more details" field in CM? I do have the upgraded pay version, but those infos are missing

 

[Michael Hornbuckle]

I think it is experimental; that part doesn't always give the most accurate information.

 

[Brownninja97]

It does seem to be lacking a large amount of downforce if this website is anything to go by. I realise this is the 98 car and that data is the 99 car but in-game this car seems to have about 2CL max whereas that data suggests the 99 car had around 3.2CL, granted there is always development between years but a 50% gain in downforce is doubtful.

Also the understeer is because the aero balance is stuck in the 20-30% range no matter what you do to the ride heights or rear wing (only had a quick play but did all the obvious things).


Side note, did these cars have ABS? Was it like the 92 season in F1 where everyone was making self driving cars?

I had no choice but to cut the downforce by around 30% remembering off the top of my head, im moving house right now so I dont have access to my notes but yeah in the bop process some liberties were taken with the downforce, suspension and turbos. Similar to the RSS GT1 issue the 911 gt1 is way too slow everywhere it goes ranging up to five seconds slower then the real variant, the ts020 started off around 1-2seconds then the real porsche off the top of my head which added up to me needing to slow the car down significantly hence much lower downforce. I was having difficulty with this balancing process so it did result in the really bad balance. Regarding the abs it shouldnt be there.

 

[burrito]

I had no choice but to cut the downforce by around 30% remembering off the top of my head, im moving house right now so I dont have access to my notes but yeah in the bop process some liberties were taken with the downforce, suspension and turbos. Similar to the RSS GT1 issue the 911 gt1 is way too slow everywhere it goes ranging up to five seconds slower then the real variant, the ts020 started off around 1-2seconds then the real porsche off the top of my head which added up to me needing to slow the car down significantly hence much lower downforce. I was having difficulty with this balancing process so it did result in the really bad balance. Regarding the abs it shouldnt be there.

So the 911 GT1 is inaccurate compared to its real times so you nerfed your own car to meet it? Just so we are on the same page, that sentence wasn't too clear. And tbh that still doesn't really explain the heavily rear biased aero balance and the complete lack of response from the car's aero platform when changing the ride height.

 

[Brownninja97]

So the 911 GT1 is inaccurate compared to its real times so you nerfed your own car to meet it? Just so we are on the same page, that sentence wasn't too clear. And tbh that still doesn't really explain the heavily rear biased aero balance and the complete lack of response from the car's aero platform when changing the ride height.

Yes because its what people will race againest, i understand not everyone likes that. I wasnt aware of the ride height problem ill look into it.

 

[Andreas Knöpke]

Might be a bit late for that now but a dumbed down version woulda perhaps been better as a Step1 iteration as I'm sure most of us here prefered a properly fast and beasty GT-One

 

[Salajutsu]

Virtua is back? praise the day!!

 

[Albert McSaltens]

beautiful car, tnx
however physics need work, the car will not turn at all once it reaches some speed, even with rear wing at minimum, the aero is wrong, and the car can't tun because of it

 

[Nico]

Is it normal that the headlights are black when turned off? Looks a bit odd in the showroom.

Still haven't tried it on track by the way, might do it tomorrow.

 

[Virtua Simulazioni]

beautiful car, tnx
however physics need work, the car will not turn at all once it reaches some speed, even with rear wing at minimum, the aero is wrong, and the car can't tun because of it

the key is to slow down for corners