MRA Discussion, Issues and Recommendations

124

Comments

  • JackyQuJackyQu Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    Which is why I don't understand the X5 M50d....
    I posted a test about it, the Bentayga Diesel and X5 M50D are definitely over powered
  • thebigbadwolfthebigbadwolf Posts: 184 ✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    Which is why I don't understand the X5 M50d....
    True, but as that car had already been mentioned on this post, i did not want to dig it up again
  • AslanVAslanV Posts: 543 ✭✭✭
    AslanV said:
    I found it ok, (I have both) as at first, they are limited by the traction, then when they have full traction, it is all MRA and torque.

    586 vs 695 :)
    The Diesel weighs more and has a lot less HP. Torque is nice, but irrelevant when it comes to drag racing. 
    There is just no way that the diesel would win vs the v8 in real life. It is not how diesel engines work. Diesel torque makes cars quick off the line but the mid to high-end acceleration is atrocious compared to petrol engines.
    Seems that the weight of the car is playing inside the game on Dirt.

    I can tell that in drag race, on asphalt the V8 is wining all day long again the Diesel. 

    I try to explain how the game resolver is behaving, not if this is real life :) Plus it can be something as dumb as the gear you are in. Let say that you are at 60 in third (3000rpm) vs a car which is at 60 in second at (7000rpm) one will have more problem to accelerate further. Yeah i know it a little bit too deep...

    But after if the MRA they are based in wrong, I guess we have to correct it :)
  • JaguarDTMJaguarDTM Posts: 324 ✭✭✭
    Sad that once the Bentayga Diesel/X5 M50d are nerfed they'll be useless.

    That's the problem with corrections. Hutch buffed the Bentayga purely to balance it, I highly doubt they actually researched any of its MRA/0-60 data. Same with the Beamer. They insist on having us constantly search for real life data to correct these cars but a lot of times Hutch just nerfs/buffs things purely to balance cars/make hierarchy correct. Ground clearance is the same, Hutch keeps cars medium despite them being low irl and when they do end up enforcing real life data in terms of ground clearance, it almost always ends up with an angered playerbase and cars which were once useful now useless. It's ridiculous. 
  • JaguarDTMJaguarDTM Posts: 324 ✭✭✭
    Hutch has to choose whether they buff/nerf/keep cars the same based purely for balancing purposes or real life, sometimes both can coincide with each other for cars, lot of times they do not. Especially true for ground clearance as a whole. 
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 710 ✭✭✭✭
    yeah so the car correction as a whole is kinda dumb if you think about it, when hutch first adds those cars they're all balanced and stuff

    and then one of the cars gets stat corrected, whether it's 0-60 buff, mra nerf, or both, and that upsets the balance of the cars (notable example is the s8 plus compared to the rs6 avant and rs7 sportback, it used to be neck and neck-ish with rs7 and now it's nothing)
  • LimpJetLimpJet Posts: 14
    The weakest Nissan GTR ever built was 2009 and was compared to the McLaren 12C on the Nürburgring. Which was actually beaten by it.

    The 1/8 - 1 mile times are almost the same. So the MRA of the GTR should be a lot higher.

    https://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/o5lf5rrojl4j

    Nürburgring times are official and can be seen on other sites too. 
  • JackyQuJackyQu Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭✭
    LimpJet said:
    The weakest Nissan GTR ever built was 2009 and was compared to the McLaren 12C on the Nürburgring. Which was actually beaten by it.

    The 1/8 - 1 mile times are almost the same. So the MRA of the GTR should be a lot higher.

    https://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/o5lf5rrojl4j

    Nürburgring times are official and can be seen on other sites too. 
    Nurburgring cars are usually modified, especially if you are trying to say about manufacturer runs, like roll cages, different tires from the road car and aerodynamics

    Fastest lap don’t do their own testing
  • LimpJetLimpJet Posts: 14
    JackyQu said:
    LimpJet said:
    The weakest Nissan GTR ever built was 2009 and was compared to the McLaren 12C on the Nürburgring. Which was actually beaten by it.

    The 1/8 - 1 mile times are almost the same. So the MRA of the GTR should be a lot higher.

    https://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/o5lf5rrojl4j

    Nürburgring times are official and can be seen on other sites too. 
    Nurburgring cars are usually modified, especially if you are trying to say about manufacturer runs, like roll cages, different tires from the road car and aerodynamics

    Fastest lap don’t do their own testing
    If they are modded its for both McLaren and the GTR. Also you can see 1/8 to 1 mile drags for stock cars on there. Almost the same.
    Still it makes no sense to make the MRA that low, it's almost like it would stop accelerating after 60mph. 
  • MollyWonkaMollyWonka Posts: 9
    Hutch has already fixed this Bentayga based on Car And Driver testing, now it's perfect. I don't see the point of touching the acceleration of this car again, it's better to deal with the V8 and W12. 
    Link to the C&D test: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15081564/2018-bentley-bentayga-diesel-first-drive-review/
    P.S. The screenshots were taken a few weeks before the PL11.2 update, so the old RQ is still here.
  • AslanVAslanV Posts: 543 ✭✭✭
    LimpJet said:
    The weakest Nissan GTR ever built was 2009 and was compared to the McLaren 12C on the Nürburgring. Which was actually beaten by it.

    The 1/8 - 1 mile times are almost the same. So the MRA of the GTR should be a lot higher.

    https://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/o5lf5rrojl4j

    Nürburgring times are official and can be seen on other sites too. 
    Problem is more the grip than MRA, as MRA, acceleration are easy to correct with factual data.

    But grip is another problem, as there is no definitive value
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 710 ✭✭✭✭
    Small change with the Ecoboost Mustang.
    Car and Driver reviewed the automatic version: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15107868/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-automatic-test-review/

    0-60 mph: 5.5 -> 5.2 sec
    Top Speed: 145 -> 149 mph

    0-100 mph: 14.1 -> 14.4 sec

    0-130 mph: ~33.67 -> 31.0 sec

    1/4 mile: 14.16 @ 100 mph -> 13.9 @ 98 mph
  • AslanVAslanV Posts: 543 ✭✭✭
    Does the manual impact for better or worse ?
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 710 ✭✭✭✭
    would imagine the manual version to be even slower considering how fast modern automatics are
  • NinjaDesignzNinjaDesignz Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Here is the test featuring the Ecoboost Mustang with a manual

    C/D
     TEST RESULTS:
    Zero to 60 mph: 5.5 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 13.3 sec
    Zero to 140 mph: 31.4 sec
    Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.8 sec
    Standing ¼-mile: 13.9 sec @ 102 mph
    Top speed (governor limited): 148 mph
    Braking, 70-0 mph: 157 ft
    Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.98 g

    https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15106693/2015-ford-mustang-23l-ecoboost-manual-test-review/
  • AslanVAslanV Posts: 543 ✭✭✭
    edited July 9
    So 0-60 may be accurate depending which version we have in game. But the MRA need a bump then! Nice !
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 710 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 10
    Nearly a whole second faster to 100 with the manual, it seems off.
  • NinjaDesignzNinjaDesignz Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 11
    Nearly a whole second faster to 100 with the manual, it seems off.
    Could be due to the difference in rpms the automatic shifts at. The test notes for the manual car it said this "In lower gears, hurried shifts at the 6600-rpm redline bog the engine and head-toss passengers. It runs quicker when shifting closer to 6000 rpm." Or it could be due to gearing... It does have a shorter rear axle ratio which is why it was slower to 60, according to the article. 
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 710 ✭✭✭✭
    Caterham CSR (A72)
    Road and Track reviewed the car: https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/reviews/a12130/2006-caterham-csr/

    0-60 mph: 3.1 sec -> 3.4 sec (C&D got a test result of 3.6 seconds)

    0-100 mph: 9.45 sec -> 9.1 sec

    1/4 mile: 11.96 sec @ 108 mph -> 12.00 sec @ 114 mph (technically 113.7 but you get the idea)
    The said car and driver review where they tested the CSR's 0-60 time can be found here: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a18201627/2006-caterham-csr260-specialty-file/
  • AslanVAslanV Posts: 543 ✭✭✭
    Less 0-60 but better MRA :O
  • NinjaDesignzNinjaDesignz Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The 0-100 mph of the Porsche 928 should be improved. Here are stock times in game 

    PERFORMANCE (FACTORY DATA)
    62 mph: 6.8 sec
    100 mph: 13.5 sec
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 710 ✭✭✭✭
    Assuming the 0-60 doesn't change, that's almost 100 MRA, wow.
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 710 ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 27
    2012 Volkswagen Golf R (A67)

    0-60 mph time: 5.2 -> 5.9 sec
    Top Speed: 127 mph (I guess US spec have lower limited top speed than Europe so it wouldn't need to be touched)

    0-100 mph time: 12.5 -> 14.6 sec

    0-120 mph time: 19.83 -> 23.1 sec

    1/4 mile time: 13.75 sec @ 104 mph -> 14.3 sec @ 99 mph
    When I first saw this I thought that there was some sort of mistake, no way the difference between the review and ingame is that big.
    Post edited by PlantedZebra on
  • AslanVAslanV Posts: 543 ✭✭✭
    I am genuinely surprised by the R, as this already have a not so good MRA !
  • juan_cruz_96juan_cruz_96 Posts: 306 ✭✭✭
    The Q70 is slower IRL. The 0-60 used by Hutch is close to the hybrid one, but they chosed the 330 hp 3.7L V6, wich gets the car to 60 mph in something like 6.2 sec



    My source: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/infiniti/q70/specs/37-v6-sport-tech-4dr-auto
    @havvy 's source: 
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 710 ✭✭✭✭
    @JackyQu Would be nice if you also uploaded a picture of 0-170 too :)
  • JackyQuJackyQu Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭✭
    0-170

Sign In or Register to comment.