PL12: European Revolution Patch Notes Discussion

1356710

Comments

  • JaguarDTMJaguarDTM Posts: 391 ✭✭✭
    Db314 said:
    Out of curiosity, what are the parameters for ground clearance? There seem to be a lot of inconsistencies, i.e. a car with higher ground clearance will be set as "low" while a car with lower clearance will be considered "medium".
    137mm is the limit for cars between medium/low, if a car is below 137mm it's low, above 137mm it's medium. The ground clearance thing does irritate me because I think ground clearance should be used as a balancing thing instead of going by some random number and throwing all cars in meant to adhere to that number. I mean Hutch will willingly correct cars even if the data for it is actually correct/closer to real life data just to fix a hierarchy, yet when it comes to ground clearance balance doesn't matter. 
  • JackyQuJackyQu Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 16
    Would someone go over bumps faster because they are in a car with higher ground clearance?
  • xaratsarhsxaratsarhs Posts: 381 ✭✭✭
    Yes...
  • RobGripesRobGripes Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Maybe in a race dynamic, which is what they're doing in Top Drives. 

    I would like to see them go over a lot slower though, like max speed being around 15 mph. currently I think it is at 33mph which would damage a suspension pretty quickly.
  • GymopenGymopen Posts: 122 ✭✭✭
    RobGripes said:
    Yeh the ultimate solution would to have varying slowdown penalties depending on the actual ground clearance as a number data rather than such broad categories. 

    There currently is a penalty for low, but medium and high go the same speed over the bumps. It never made sense to me.

    I do understand that it would require a bit of an overhaul of that feature but i don't think it would be too difficult to do.

    Something like Considerations of :
    Bump clearance = ground clearance - bump height

    Max speed driving over a bump at maximum bump clearance = 30mph @ 150mm bump clearance (GC-BH)

    Max driving speed at minimum BC = 1mph.



    This would allow an interesting scenario in future where bumps on various tracks could have different heights and thus affect the cars slightly differently each.
    What doesn't make sense to me is why medium and high should have a difference. I don't see G wagon owners take speed bumps at 100kph cause they have higher ground clearance than a civic.

    If they have enough clearance, they'll make it. If the car dont have enough clearance or will scrape if it goes too fast, it will have to slow down or dnf. End of story.
  • JackyQuJackyQu Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 16
    RobGripes said:
    I would like to see them go over a lot slower though, like max speed being around 15 mph. currently I think it is at 33mph which would damage a suspension pretty quickly.
    This is much more appropriate, and for cars having low ground clearance should just DNF (The “Super Low” idea someone mentioned before)
    But higher ground clearance means more speed is pretty strange if you think about that in reality 
  • RobGripesRobGripes Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 16
    Gymopen said:
    RobGripes said:
    Yeh the ultimate solution would to have varying slowdown penalties depending on the actual ground clearance as a number data rather than such broad categories. 

    There currently is a penalty for low, but medium and high go the same speed over the bumps. It never made sense to me.

    I do understand that it would require a bit of an overhaul of that feature but i don't think it would be too difficult to do.

    Something like Considerations of :
    Bump clearance = ground clearance - bump height

    Max speed driving over a bump at maximum bump clearance = 30mph @ 150mm bump clearance (GC-BH)

    Max driving speed at minimum BC = 1mph.



    This would allow an interesting scenario in future where bumps on various tracks could have different heights and thus affect the cars slightly differently each.
    What doesn't make sense to me is why medium and high should have a difference. I don't see G wagon owners take speed bumps at 100kph cause they have higher ground clearance than a civic.

    If they have enough clearance, they'll make it. If the car dont have enough clearance or will scrape if it goes too fast, it will have to slow down or dnf. End of story.

    Actually, it kinda does make sense to me. Not in a real-life setting of course where I look after my car, but in a race I would be more comfortable taking a bump at speed in a G wagon to say, a BMW 3 series. The suspension has more travel and so long as the dampers allow for the travel at quick speed they would be able to traverse the bumps more easily.

    At the moment though, it seems any car at 137mm or under crawls over and any car 138mm and over goes over them them at 33mph
  • RobGripesRobGripes Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭✭✭
    my suggestion above is not meant to reflect real-life, merely an idea to make the current Med height system a bit better, and maybe introduce some kind of variance into the game over speed bumps, that it, each car will behave differently
  • GymopenGymopen Posts: 122 ✭✭✭
    RobGripes said:
    my suggestion above is not meant to reflect real-life, merely an idea to make the current Med height system a bit better, and maybe introduce some kind of variance into the game over speed bumps, that it, each car will behave differently
    Right, I agree with it not reflecting real-life but with Top Drives, the game is moving towards realism as much as possible. I don't see how giving High clearance cars an advantage would make the current system better. Sure it adds more variance but it's a speed bump, not a flight of stairs. Just cause the suspension has more travel doesn't mean a SUV should take things faster than sedan. Just cause they can doesn't mean they should and that goes for cars of all ride heights.
  • JayJay Posts: 2,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Gymopen said:
    RobGripes said:
    my suggestion above is not meant to reflect real-life, merely an idea to make the current Med height system a bit better, and maybe introduce some kind of variance into the game over speed bumps, that it, each car will behave differently
    Right, I agree with it not reflecting real-life but with Top Drives, the game is moving towards realism as much as possible. I don't see how giving High clearance cars an advantage would make the current system better. Sure it adds more variance but it's a speed bump, not a flight of stairs. Just cause the suspension has more travel doesn't mean a SUV should take things faster than sedan. Just cause they can doesn't mean they should and that goes for cars of all ride heights.
    Except in a race if you CAN go faster then you DO.
  • vladimir1989vladimir1989 Posts: 405 ✭✭✭
    I haven't commented here in a long time but this one deserves a comment.
    So the Peugeot 407 Coupe is going from Medium to Low, yet the Skyline R34 is going from Low to medium. 
    How is this possible?
  • REALAISREALAIS Posts: 904 ✭✭✭✭
    I haven't commented here in a long time but this one deserves a comment.
    So the Peugeot 407 Coupe is going from Medium to Low, yet the Skyline R34 is going from Low to medium. 
    How is this possible?
    Like always. 137mm+ is medium. Below is Low. Sonewhere are stats for those cars supporting these changes. If you can provide other info, then you can do it in Car corrections
  • adms87adms87 Posts: 426 ✭✭✭
    I am all in favor of the changes but I dont get why quantity should be over hierarchy, I mean why not check all the cards of the same model when you change a certain stat of a car. That would also mean more changes hence more quantity.
  • TopDrives40778TopDrives40778 Posts: 2,204 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Hutch_Robin why only M5 unlimited goes low and not the other, that is pure "creating demand" move 

    No, it just slipped through, but is also noted for correction.
  • TopDrives40778TopDrives40778 Posts: 2,204 ✭✭✭✭✭
    RobGripes said:
    my suggestion above is not meant to reflect real-life, merely an idea to make the current Med height system a bit better, and maybe introduce some kind of variance into the game over speed bumps, that it, each car will behave differently
    Part of the problem with this idea is that many unique/non-production vehicles or race cars as an example are known to be very low but have no data on ground clearance.  And in reality, the ground clearance was changed race to race depending upon conditions.
  • RobGripesRobGripes Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 16
    Gymopen said:
    RobGripes said:
    my suggestion above is not meant to reflect real-life, merely an idea to make the current Med height system a bit better, and maybe introduce some kind of variance into the game over speed bumps, that it, each car will behave differently
    Right, I agree with it not reflecting real-life but with Top Drives, the game is moving towards realism as much as possible. I don't see how giving High clearance cars an advantage would make the current system better. Sure it adds more variance but it's a speed bump, not a flight of stairs. Just cause the suspension has more travel doesn't mean a SUV should take things faster than sedan. Just cause they can doesn't mean they should and that goes for cars of all ride heights.

    As Jay mentioned, in a race scenario you go as quick as you can. I am inclined to believe that SUVs would be able to go over speed bumps a touch faster than a normal car, and a normal car would be able to get over them quicker than a supercar.

    I don't think any car, even in a race, would go over them at 33mph so a direct relationship between clearance and speed should be introduced, and lowering that maximum speed from 33mph to something like 15mph would be much better IMHO.

    I think this would be a vast improvement, but we can't expect perfection. 
  • AndreasSimmerAndreasSimmer Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭✭✭
    O__VER said:
    @Hutch_Robin why only M5 unlimited goes low and not the other, that is pure "creating demand" move 

    No, it just slipped through, but is also noted for correction.
    Sorry but I can't help but ask, how does that slip through? Surely if you are considering one model, you consider the other one that's almost identical?
    Audi S8 also slipped through for now ;)

  • EndlessWavesEndlessWaves Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    Wow.....no mention yet of the Metro 6R4?
    The (potential) nerf is welcome, but until we see it in game and find out how much of the new acceleration curve lines under and over the traction limit it's hard to guess what difference it'll actually make. 
  • TopDrives40778TopDrives40778 Posts: 2,204 ✭✭✭✭✭
    O__VER said:
    @Hutch_Robin why only M5 unlimited goes low and not the other, that is pure "creating demand" move 

    No, it just slipped through, but is also noted for correction.
    Sorry but I can't help but ask, how does that slip through? Surely if you are considering one model, you consider the other one that's almost identical?
    Both were always noted for correction.  Only one got corrected.  That’s as much as I know. 
  • r79r79 Posts: 32
    The Jaguar XE Project 8 has to low MRA. I have seen some times shown on this forum indicating it should be around 90-95 but currently it is I think 76 and is loosing with many "normal" cars which is odd if you know that Project 8 is some 150k track car!
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 825 ✭✭✭✭
    @JaguarDTM the CTR currently does 0-150 in 14.8 secs so that's technically an improvement
  • rei348rei348 Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 16
    Ozzman said:
    Car corrections, with rarity and RQ, ordered by manufacturer and RQ... as it should have been published.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XRp63AhOD-JgcBQMUJdhWzgNEykftzl1a7zJBF1JN4Y/edit?usp=sharing 
    Thank you!!!

    And we lost one of the best cars for city streets.. GG Boss 302...
    12 wasted UR, it was not maxed yet. Still a huge loss for a f2p...
  • 0liver770liver77 Posts: 357 ✭✭✭
    Ozzman said:
    Car corrections, with rarity and RQ, ordered by manufacturer and RQ... as it should have been published.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XRp63AhOD-JgcBQMUJdhWzgNEykftzl1a7zJBF1JN4Y/edit?usp=sharing 

    Great thank you. I didn't get that Hutch provided a table with hidden lines.
  • willcf15willcf15 Posts: 393 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 16
    rei348 said:
     
    Thank you!!!

    And we lost one of the best cars for city streets.. GG Boss 302...
    12 wasted UR, it was not maxed yet. Still a huge loss for a f2p...

    I hadn't caught that. 9 wasted here. Pretty upset about this. First the Z/28, now this. How many B classes will I lose to ruined city streets cars?
  • lemmings99olemmings99o Posts: 1,719 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ozzman said:
    Car corrections, with rarity and RQ, ordered by manufacturer and RQ... as it should have been published.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XRp63AhOD-JgcBQMUJdhWzgNEykftzl1a7zJBF1JN4Y/edit?usp=sharing 
    Where did you get the RQ's from or did you put them all in yourself?

    I only ask as line 165 has the wrong mustang I believe as isn't it the super rare one that's getting faster based of the 0-60 being 5.8?
Sign In or Register to comment.