PL11 Car Corrections Discussion

12345679»

Comments

  • NinjaDesignzNinjaDesignz Posts: 2,394 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Karhgath Unfortunately, I would say the 911 turbo actually is intentional and not a mistake, as I believe the changes to the car were based off this: https://forums.hutchgames.com/discussion/7291/1995-porsche-911-turbo

    The proposed MRA was 64.91 in that road test.
    Yeah but there's a 0-150 time of 20ish seconds and it doesn't get anywhere close to that in the game 
  • JackyQuJackyQu Posts: 737 ✭✭✭
    Ozzman said:
    JackyQu said:
    Db11 testing
    Is that 699 or 969?
    699
  • OzzmanOzzman Posts: 1,572 ✭✭✭✭✭
    mazeoops said:
    Waited for a year. 

    You deserve it buddy. :)
  • ViMurrViMurr Posts: 66 ✭✭
    RWare said:



    All I want to know is, if the 0-60 gets changed, is it intentional to leave the rest of the curve skewed due to this, which can effectively kill a car's MRA.

    Also, please, please please, read and test your patch notes. The amount of ''Improved MRA'' which means ''No actually it's worse'' is really poor. This is a selection of cars I own.

    I was actually pretty excited with the car changes, I read through the notes thinking "Yeah, quite a few cars I own get little buffs!"

    But in reality, in one hand you've given a car better 0-60 and with the other, hampered it's MRA.
    You should bring this to hutch team attention, beacuse it's quite critic, your good work show the flaws of the parch notes and the poor way of adjustment they are using. Create a specific post with this table and ask for explanation. I really curious about what they will say.
  • evilprofesseurevilprofesseur Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ozzman said:
    I also did some tests on the cars I have, affected by PL11.1. Let's compare the truth to the patch notes. The results are surprisingly(?) mixed. I'm comparing the RexKwonDo MRA here, but please note, that is not what Hutch means by MRA, but as you can see it's still a pretty good indicator of a car's high range speed capabilities.
    Audi RS 5 Cabriolet (2012) Changed 0-60 to 4.3s, improved MRA
    Much better to 60, a bit better to 100, worse high range acceleration.
    BMW 435i Gran Coupe (2014) Changed 0-60 from 5.4 to 4.9s, handling improved from 74 to 78
    Much better to 60, same to 100, worse high range acceleration.

    BMW M3 (2008) improved 0-60 from 4.8 to 4.3s
    Much better to 60, almost the same to 100, much worse high range acceleration.

    BMW M6 (2016) improved 0-60 from 4.2 to 3.6s
    Much better to 60 and 100, similar MRA, also better high range acceleration. Similar patch notes to the M3, yet a completely different outcome.

    Chevrolet Camaro Convertible (2012) Improved MRA, Name Changed to Camaro SS Convertible, added Muscle Car tag.
    Much worse to 60, which the patch notes failed to mention, but also much better high range acceleration, and much better MRA.

    Jaguar F-Type R Coupe AWD (2016) has had 0-60 improved from 3.9 to 3.4 seconds, MRA improved, and handling improved from 82 to 85
    Much better to 60, a bit better to 100, much worse high range acceleration.

    Jaguar XJR-15 (1990) has had 0-60 improved from 3.9 to 3.3, MRA has been improved, handling has been increased from 87 to 88
    Much better to 60 and 100, similar MRA, also better high range acceleration.

    Pagani Zonda F (2005) has had its MRA slightly improved
    Same to 60, better overall, improved MRA indeed.

    Ruf Turbo 3.3 (1977) top speed increased from 160 to 176. Improved MRA
    Same to 60, better overall, improved MRA indeed.

    Subaru Impreza WRX STI (2010) 0-60 has improved to 5.0s from 5.2
    A bit better to 60 and 100, a bit worse MRA, a bit worse high range acceleration.

    Subaru WRX (1993) 0-60 improve from 6.0 to 5.5 seconds
    Much better to 60, a bit better to 100, worse MRA, worse high range acceleration.

    Vauxhall VXR8 GTS (2016) has had its MRA improved, handling improved from 81 to 85, added Muscle Car tag
    Same to 60, better overall, improved MRA indeed.

    Vauxhall/Opel Maloo R8 LSA (2016) 0-60 improved from 4.5 to 4.4 seconds, improved MRA, added Muscle Car tag
    A bit better to 60 and 100, a bit worse MRA, a bit better high range acceleration.


    TL,DR: don't trust the patch notes, test the cars yourself. :)
    Question is how much of that was intentional
  • EndlessWavesEndlessWaves Posts: 655 ✭✭✭✭
    Ozzman said:
    I also did some tests on the cars I have, affected by PL11.1. Let's compare the truth to the patch notes. The results are surprisingly(?) mixed. I'm comparing the RexKwonDo MRA here, but please note, that is not what Hutch means by MRA, but as you can see it's still a pretty good indicator of a car's high range speed capabilities.
    But you're using the relative figure there, so where 0-60 has changed it's meaningless to compare them.

    If you want to use 60-100 in those cases it'd be better to use the time in seconds, rather than it's proportion to 0-60. 
  • OzzmanOzzman Posts: 1,572 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ozzman said:
    I also did some tests on the cars I have, affected by PL11.1. Let's compare the truth to the patch notes. The results are surprisingly(?) mixed. I'm comparing the RexKwonDo MRA here, but please note, that is not what Hutch means by MRA, but as you can see it's still a pretty good indicator of a car's high range speed capabilities.
    But you're using the relative figure there, so where 0-60 has changed it's meaningless to compare them.

    If you want to use 60-100 in those cases it'd be better to use the time in seconds, rather than it's proportion to 0-60. 
    The MRA, as we calculate it is not the important part here. But it is still a good indicator to predict what you can expect from a car on longer drags. I just wanted to point out, that when Hutch says MRA improved, that can mean totally different things, and almost never what we expect.
  • EndlessWavesEndlessWaves Posts: 655 ✭✭✭✭
    Ozzman said:
    Ozzman said:
    I also did some tests on the cars I have, affected by PL11.1. Let's compare the truth to the patch notes. The results are surprisingly(?) mixed. I'm comparing the RexKwonDo MRA here, but please note, that is not what Hutch means by MRA, but as you can see it's still a pretty good indicator of a car's high range speed capabilities.
    But you're using the relative figure there, so where 0-60 has changed it's meaningless to compare them.

    If you want to use 60-100 in those cases it'd be better to use the time in seconds, rather than it's proportion to 0-60. 
    The MRA, as we calculate it is not the important part here. But it is still a good indicator to predict what you can expect from a car on longer drags. I just wanted to point out, that when Hutch says MRA improved, that can mean totally different things, and almost never what we expect.
    But the 60-100 acceleration can go up in absolute terms even if the proportion relative to 0-60 goes down.

    For example a car has 4.0s 0-60 and 4.0s 60-100, meaning 100 MRA.

    If that car is then corrected to 3s 0-60 and 3.5s 60-100 it's outright faster everywhere, but the relative MRA drops from 100 to 85.7. 

    Compare relative MRA when the 0-60 has changed is not telling you whether the mid-range has improved or not, just that the shape of the acceleration curve has changed. 
  • OzzmanOzzman Posts: 1,572 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ozzman said:
    Ozzman said:
    I also did some tests on the cars I have, affected by PL11.1. Let's compare the truth to the patch notes. The results are surprisingly(?) mixed. I'm comparing the RexKwonDo MRA here, but please note, that is not what Hutch means by MRA, but as you can see it's still a pretty good indicator of a car's high range speed capabilities.
    But you're using the relative figure there, so where 0-60 has changed it's meaningless to compare them.

    If you want to use 60-100 in those cases it'd be better to use the time in seconds, rather than it's proportion to 0-60. 
    The MRA, as we calculate it is not the important part here. But it is still a good indicator to predict what you can expect from a car on longer drags. I just wanted to point out, that when Hutch says MRA improved, that can mean totally different things, and almost never what we expect.
    But the 60-100 acceleration can go up in absolute terms even if the proportion relative to 0-60 goes down.

    For example a car has 4.0s 0-60 and 4.0s 60-100, meaning 100 MRA.

    If that car is then corrected to 3s 0-60 and 3.5s 60-100 it's outright faster everywhere, but the relative MRA drops from 100 to 85.7. 

    Compare relative MRA when the 0-60 has changed is not telling you whether the mid-range has improved or not, just that the shape of the acceleration curve has changed. 
    Yeah I get what you say, that's exactly what happened to the M6, Maloo and the XJR-15. Even though the MRA got worse, the car overall got faster. But in many other cases, the high range acceleration payed the cost of the lower 0-60. Just look at the M3 and the M6. Same patch notes, completely different effect. Was this intentional, or accidental?
  • 0171801718 Posts: 238 ✭✭✭
    Ozzman said:
    Ozzman said:
    Ozzman said:
    I also did some tests on the cars I have, affected by PL11.1. Let's compare the truth to the patch notes. The results are surprisingly(?) mixed. I'm comparing the RexKwonDo MRA here, but please note, that is not what Hutch means by MRA, but as you can see it's still a pretty good indicator of a car's high range speed capabilities.
    But you're using the relative figure there, so where 0-60 has changed it's meaningless to compare them.

    If you want to use 60-100 in those cases it'd be better to use the time in seconds, rather than it's proportion to 0-60. 
    The MRA, as we calculate it is not the important part here. But it is still a good indicator to predict what you can expect from a car on longer drags. I just wanted to point out, that when Hutch says MRA improved, that can mean totally different things, and almost never what we expect.
    But the 60-100 acceleration can go up in absolute terms even if the proportion relative to 0-60 goes down.

    For example a car has 4.0s 0-60 and 4.0s 60-100, meaning 100 MRA.

    If that car is then corrected to 3s 0-60 and 3.5s 60-100 it's outright faster everywhere, but the relative MRA drops from 100 to 85.7. 

    Compare relative MRA when the 0-60 has changed is not telling you whether the mid-range has improved or not, just that the shape of the acceleration curve has changed. 
    Yeah I get what you say, that's exactly what happened to the M6, Maloo and the XJR-15. Even though the MRA got worse, the car overall got faster. But in many other cases, the high range acceleration payed the cost of the lower 0-60. Just look at the M3 and the M6. Same patch notes, completely different effect. Was this intentional, or accidental?
    I agree with @EndlessWaves that the MRA according to the RexKwonDo method makes it hard to understand the effect we could expect from the changelog. Hence I want to suggest ( @Hutch_Robin ) to improve future patch notes to make them more useful and also to just tell us what Hutch means by "MRA" :).

    Also I would like to discuss what the observations of the M3 and the M6 actually mean. I always expected the acceleration curves to be very simple. You have a 0-60 value and a top speed and maybe some value in between (likely 0-100) and otherwise the function is strictly linear.
    Ozzman said:

    BMW M3 (2008) improved 0-60 from 4.8 to 4.3s
    Much better to 60, almost the same to 100, much worse high range acceleration.

    BMW M6 (2016) improved 0-60 from 4.2 to 3.6s
    Much better to 60 and 100, similar MRA, also better high range acceleration. Similar patch notes to the M3, yet a completely different outcome.


    TL,DR: don't trust the patch notes, test the cars yourself. :)
    I think this is just what we see here.

    The M3 has improved 0-60 (steeper linear acceleration) but then the same 0-100 (flatter linear acceleration, hence lower MRA). Hutch's internal MRA will be lower, too. So it is only logical, that the car loses time on the mile, because of the lower MRA (flatter linear acceleration) that probably carries on after 100 mph.

    The M6 has lower 0-60 and lower 0-100. The difference is about one second and this translates to a very similar RexKwonDo-MRA. Likely, the internal Hutch-MRA is similiar, too, just as the patch notes say. the linear acceleration curve has about the same steepness as before. Hence the pre and post 1 mile time and the 0-100 show a similar difference (0,9 vs 1,1)

    Rule of the thumb would be: If a car gets a better 0-60 without adapting the 0-100 or MRA, the long range acceleration suffers.

  • OzzmanOzzman Posts: 1,572 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 18
    01718 said:
    Ozzman said:
    Ozzman said:
    Ozzman said:
    I also did some tests on the cars I have, affected by PL11.1. Let's compare the truth to the patch notes. The results are surprisingly(?) mixed. I'm comparing the RexKwonDo MRA here, but please note, that is not what Hutch means by MRA, but as you can see it's still a pretty good indicator of a car's high range speed capabilities.
    But you're using the relative figure there, so where 0-60 has changed it's meaningless to compare them.

    If you want to use 60-100 in those cases it'd be better to use the time in seconds, rather than it's proportion to 0-60. 
    The MRA, as we calculate it is not the important part here. But it is still a good indicator to predict what you can expect from a car on longer drags. I just wanted to point out, that when Hutch says MRA improved, that can mean totally different things, and almost never what we expect.
    But the 60-100 acceleration can go up in absolute terms even if the proportion relative to 0-60 goes down.

    For example a car has 4.0s 0-60 and 4.0s 60-100, meaning 100 MRA.

    If that car is then corrected to 3s 0-60 and 3.5s 60-100 it's outright faster everywhere, but the relative MRA drops from 100 to 85.7. 

    Compare relative MRA when the 0-60 has changed is not telling you whether the mid-range has improved or not, just that the shape of the acceleration curve has changed. 
    Yeah I get what you say, that's exactly what happened to the M6, Maloo and the XJR-15. Even though the MRA got worse, the car overall got faster. But in many other cases, the high range acceleration payed the cost of the lower 0-60. Just look at the M3 and the M6. Same patch notes, completely different effect. Was this intentional, or accidental?
    I agree with @EndlessWaves that the MRA according to the RexKwonDo method makes it hard to understand the effect we could expect from the changelog. Hence I want to suggest ( @Hutch_Robin ) to improve future patch notes to make them more useful and also to just tell us what Hutch means by "MRA" :).

    Also I would like to discuss what the observations of the M3 and the M6 actually mean. I always expected the acceleration curves to be very simple. You have a 0-60 value and a top speed and maybe some value in between (likely 0-100) and otherwise the function is strictly linear.
    Ozzman said:

    BMW M3 (2008) improved 0-60 from 4.8 to 4.3s
    Much better to 60, almost the same to 100, much worse high range acceleration.

    BMW M6 (2016) improved 0-60 from 4.2 to 3.6s
    Much better to 60 and 100, similar MRA, also better high range acceleration. Similar patch notes to the M3, yet a completely different outcome.


    TL,DR: don't trust the patch notes, test the cars yourself. :)
    I think this is just what we see here.

    The M3 has improved 0-60 (steeper linear acceleration) but then the same 0-100 (flatter linear acceleration, hence lower MRA). Hutch's internal MRA will be lower, too. So it is only logical, that the car loses time on the mile, because of the lower MRA (flatter linear acceleration) that probably carries on after 100 mph.

    The M6 has lower 0-60 and lower 0-100. The difference is about one second and this translates to a very similar RexKwonDo-MRA. Likely, the internal Hutch-MRA is similiar, too, just as the patch notes say. the linear acceleration curve has about the same steepness as before. Hence the pre and post 1 mile time and the 0-100 show a similar difference (0,9 vs 1,1)

    Rule of the thumb would be: If a car gets a better 0-60 without adapting the 0-100 or MRA, the long range acceleration suffers.

    Yes, I understand all this. I just want to know how much of this is intended and how much is accidental. As you can see lowering a car's 0-60 can have a drastic effect on it's high range acceleration, but not necessarily, as you can see with the M6. Here's another example, the RQ27 Jaguar F-Type R Coupe AWD. Lowering this car's 0-60 caused much worse 0-150 and 0-170 times. Was this intentional? I'd really love to hear your opinion @Hutch_Tim.

    Acceleration curves:

    Post edited by Ozzman on
Sign In or Register to comment.