Cars Porsche 911 Singer 1.2 (csp)

[AlleyViper]

Thanks for sharing, new metallic paint looks promising and brings some of the colors alive (107 Green 2!). You could also specify skins, or leave one extra ext_config.ini per skin folder with only that paint section to be merged if you'd like to control them individually and/or leave a few more solid like white, 055 green, etc.

New glass rainbow effect on the headlights looks really nice too . The only thing that csp seems to be causing trouble with is the interior reflections on headlights, they seem to become very dark when compared to the bright vanilla chrome that looks more appropriate for this car's details. I'm eager to see the fantastic 1.0 that will become from you both,
Cheers

 

[Robin_NL]

The argument that 964 based cars should lighten the steering at high speed makes even *less* sense. The force at the axle is working towards making the front steering *heavier*.

I've driven a lot of 911 IRL , older(1972) newer(1987/1989) and also 964 models and all of the get them lighter(speedboatlike, typical for an Elfer: the layout) in the steering minus 964 C4 which has more weight(awd) on front axle. I was on the brink of buying a 2005 997S back in 2008 but because of the kids I chose an M3 E90. 997 also suffered from the speedboat effect. Nontheless nice car.

Back to 964. In 1995 I had the honour to drive a real 1992 964RS(!) and it has lightness upfront/steering at speeds as well....

Cheers
Robin

 

[Kyuubeey]

Assuming the data isn't junk, there isn't any kind of aerodynamic element lifting the tires, and I doubt Porsche power steering lightens the steering at speed.

I would just put it down to the tire effects which are pronounced IRL not being so pronounced in the sim, due to various factors, largely hardware. I can't do anything about that.

Actually this made me curious, so I think I'll go test it myself a bit later. My wheel is pretty weak and I run it quite low, so I'm not absolutely sure if there's any kind of really noticeable effect present. 10% on a G27 is a bit different from 10% on a 10x stronger wheel, after all.

Funnily enough Niels just posted a video about this, so give it a watch if you want.

 

[Kyuubeey]

Well I took some video and found a good average point for low-ish and high-ish speeds @ similar slip angle and throttle, which I can only assume will provide somewhat similar conditions.

Somewhat unexpectedly, the result is what the tire loads would hint towards: more FFB. I used stock G27 FFB and 100% gain, 0% minimum.

Seeing as AC steering forces are literally just rack end forces, I guess it makes sense to some point. I was expecting some other tire factors to come into it, though. For whatever reason it does seem like some cars/tires decrease steering forces even with a manual rack at higher groundspeed for whatever reason IRL, but not so in sims. Not sure I personally can do anything about this: gamma won't really work as intended because we want it to be dependent on groundspeed, not load.

 

[Błażej Wianecki]

Firstly, thanks for this beautiful mod.

I found few visual issues with it:
- Driver position is off. His torso goes through the seat and can be seen on the other side
- Left front blinker texture is different to the right one. The left one has quite a strange reflection under certain lighting.
- Rake of the steering rack seems off. Should be tlited up a bit more. Now it seems fairly obstructive with driver eyes position matched to the driver model.
I can try to include some reference photos from the web tomorrow if You wish.

As for the physics:
Regarding the brake bias. The car actually feels like a sled under braking. Braking performance in general seems to suffer greatly - quite frankly it’s atrocious.
I read all the replies about how the brakes from 993 porsche with braking force distribution from turbo. For sure it is. However neither the carfection onboard footage nor the Chris Harris review confirm the behavior presented by the mod. Chris actually says something about how he wished the brake balance had been moved toward the front because it seems so spiky under braking. Yes I understand it was a development car at that stage and it might well have changed, but at least it’s a proof Singer fettled with it a lot. I can’t see how they later reverted it to stock settings.

 

[dud]

There is no lift on the Singer, man. This isnt'a stock 964. Arch already posted the aero chart. The guys at the company obsessed for a year over the shape. Think they spared some cents for aero tunnel or cad testing the final mule.

It seems you're mixing aero lift, which this car has not, with front lift due to weight transfer. Don't know what wheel you use, but i definitely feel a difference between cornering front grip (up to apex) and full throttle sweeper grip. T300 RS here.

Porsche has been clear when they released the 992. Every earlier 911 generation had overall upforce, including the 991.2.

(I assume that doesn't mean GT3, Turbo and possibly aerokit cars, but they did not elaborate on that)

Street cars are more like airplanes than anything else.

 

[Kyuubeey]

Yeah, and the 964 as well has overall lift. Doesn't mean the front lifts.

About the brakes, we've gone over this a few times now. Just wait for next version.

 

[dud]

That's already what happens in the physics engine natively. I can't tweak it at all without applying a gamma to it. I doubt the forces at the rack ends are very incorrect either.

There isn't any real significant aero lift in the 964. It's in the single digit kilos at 200km/h. It's completely imperceptible. Aero won't play any real part in it. Moreover the spook on the Singer should probably be making more downforce than it currently is, if we're being honest.

Just to clear it up, what is your idea being based on? You imagination of what it should be feel like, or the experience of having driven at least a few hundred hours in these cars?

I have a 996 and "usually" drove BMWs.

One of the defining features of the 911 for me is that steering resistance changes with load changes and speed. Of course speed is hard to measure here in the U.S.

In my opinion it can be ruled out that the Singer 964 has overall downforce. However, I would be very interested in collecting more hard information.

 

[dud]

If I were to open a new thread on 911 aerodynamics in the "Motorsports" subforum (or the car culture one?), would you folks be interested in collecting data and discuss this outside this thread?

 

[Kyuubeey]

The steering forces are literally just forces at rack ends. It should be sensible in regards to load change affecting FFB. I can't tweak it in any intelligent way.

The resistance change with speed is probably a tire thing: no one seems to really know why exactly it happens. Doesn't seem to be built into AC. Can't do anything about it.

Not sure why you think the Singer wouldn't be making overall downforce. Not exactly hard to achieve: just put any negative lift producing element like a spook or airdam with a lip on the front and make the rear spoiler a tiny bit more aggressive to go into slight downforce generation territory. If these mods would increase drag is unclear, a bit too complicated because the body shape has changed as well. Currently they don't.

If you find any further aero data, sure, throw it my way. Discussion is almost pointless however unless we have something more educated than "I think" to go by. I'm just talking based on what I've seen out of wind tunnels and some CFD.

EDIT: Hell, here's one of the first articles I found:

"Instead of the predecessor’s 0.42, the 964 achieved a remarkable drag coefficient of 0.32 while generating virtually no lift at high speed. Apart from bumpers, the flat undertrays which sealed front suspension, engine and transmission tunnel also played an important role to reduce drag and lift, so did the automatically raised rear spoiler which replaced a fixed wing."

Source: https://www.autozine.org/911/911_7.htm

I also remember something about using aero to generate actual downforce mentioned in a Singer interview, but I don't remember if that's a quote from Singer or from the journalist.

 

[jonelsorel]

I fail to understand why one would insist so much in taking the Singer in any direction whatsoever without proper data to back it..

Second thing i don't really get is why would one be so certain that Singer didn't take this into account in this day and age (wind tunnel simulations being so accessible), when they obsess over improving every single aspect of the car and they charge 10 times the price of a 964 in order to improve it. They spent close to 2 years just to get the shape right.

Third thing that i'd like to understand is why would someone want the steering to feed less information at speed, when the ac engine already simplifies ff too much, and conveys less information than it should. This game needs ff similar to gt sport, in which you can feel the grip available at any speed and angle and you don't have to guess it. I can already hear the purists saying it's cheating, but that's a funny thing to say sitting in a still chair working a wheel that's supposed to be the only physical thing conveying a car's weight shifts and grip.

I've already pointed out the front bumper's obvious lower dam, something that sports cars have been using since the 70's in order to cancel front end lift. It alone should be argument enough that Singers should be at the very least neutral at the front.

 

[dud]

Well, they did the "virtually no upforce" blah-blah for decades without giving actual numbers.

With the 992 they said that every previous generation did overall upforce, which is not an incompatible statement with what they said about the 964, just betraying a bit of marketing BS.

Data rules. As far as aerodynamic shape and estimates without data, you see air dams, but I see a perfect airplane wing profile in the 911. The mini wing that goes up to horizontal does at least break up the rush of air down the smooth back of the 911 (which is an aerodynamic catastrophe-class misfeature). The upforce does not come from air under the car, mainly. The upforce comes from underpressure on top because the air has to go a longer way and is hence thinned out. That is how an airplane wing works, and a car is not inverted from that. And the classic 911 shape is the literal worst here except maybe for the VW bug. You are driving an airplane wing shape. And an airplane wing's lift does not come from overpressure on the underside, it comes from underpressure on top.

 

[dud]

I fail to understand why one would insist so much in taking the Singer in any direction whatsoever without proper data to back it..

Second thing i don't really get is why would one be so certain that Singer didn't take this into account in this day and age (wind tunnel simulations being so accessible), when they obsess over improving every single aspect of the car and they charge 10 times the price of a 964 in order to improve it. They spent close to 2 years just to get the shape right.

Third thing that i'd like to understand is why would someone want the steering to feed less information at speed, when the ac engine already simplifies ff too much, and conveys less information than it should. This game needs ff similar to gt sport, in which you can feel the grip available at any speed and angle and you don't have to guess it. I can already hear the purists saying it's cheating, but that's a funny thing to say sitting in a still chair working a wheel that's supposed to be the only physical thing conveying a car's weight shifts and grip.

I don't want any of these things.

Less resistance does not mean less feedback detail, not even less feedback force.

There probably is nothing that Singer can do about aerodynamic at least as far as exceeding other cars of the Singer's generation, which would be the 991.1, which Porsche said had overall upforce.

I won't want any "direction change" for this car (not that it is up to me in the first place). This sub-discussion started by asking whether some 911 specialties could be modeled, and that includes that steering force varies differently and overall more than in front-engine cars.

This already is the greatest car I have seen in AC. We just enjoy armchair tinkering a bit. And some good might come from it.

 

[Kyuubeey]

Look, it's not that hard to make downforce. It is hard to make downforce and also low drag.

Hell, the 993 had *worse* aero than the 964. Small changes produce a percentually quite large change: even if it's like a kilo or two in this case. If you want net downforce, the only thing you need to do in these cars is install a rear spoiler to negate basically all of the lift, then install a really big spook in the front. Doesn't mean it will be balanced however. Singer seems to have found a nice place via CFD and wind tunnel analysis I would assume where the lift/drag ratio is a bit better than stock without destroying the drag. That's my guess at least.

Now if someone can find me some actual well measured wind tunnel readings from all these cars, that'd be something concrete. Until then we have to analyze the data we're given. Porsche's PR statements weren't incorrect: 964 still makes like a kilo or two overall lift according to data. Besides, a little bit of lift will not really change the steering feel so much.

I want the car to be perfect as much as anyone, but it's already pretty damn good for what we have. Just wait for some improvements on the next version.

 

[dud]

It is easy to make downforce.

It is very hard to make more downforce than lift when you are zooming around in a street car. Once again, Porsche are the ones saying all regular 911s before the 992 had overall lift at high speed. The 992 is also different in that the spoiler can act as an air brake.

Cannot find Porsche's own statement right now, but C&D relayed it here among other places:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a23712565/2020-porsche-911-992-preview/

 

[Kyuubeey]

All you really need to eliminate lift on a roadcar is to smooth the floor a bit, install an airdam of some kind and make sure you don't pool up air inside of the front section, and install an adequate spoiler. Then most implements you install from there are into negative lift.

Again, "overall lift" can mean 1kg of lift.

 

[dud]

We are going in circles now.

I'll troll the interwebz for some more hard data and open a new thread outside this one. There also is a person on Rennlist who seemed very knowledgeable about car aerodynamics, maybe we can get him/her to show here if we stay focused enough.

 

[Kyuubeey]

I'm pretty sure the car is as accurate as it'll get without up-to-date wind tunnel readings in a modern tunnel. The stuff I have is older wind tunnel data made into a chart IIRC.

The main thing about the highspeed feedback is likely a tire thing. If you research it, you won't find too much really tangible about it, just ideas.

 

[dud]

I'm pretty sure the car is as accurate as it'll get without up-to-date wind tunnel readings in a modern tunnel. The stuff I have is older wind tunnel data made into a chart IIRC.

The main thing about the highspeed feedback is likely a tire thing. If you research it, you won't find too much really tangible about it, just ideas.

If somebody has an idea to measure steering resistance safely at driving speed I would be willing to do it.

I just don't want to use an ordinary newtonmeter on the steering wheel while I am zooming around the high speed highway around.

I guess I need a steering wheel mounted torque meter with a steering wheel.

 

[Kyuubeey]

Oh, that especially won't do anything. Like I said before, it's likely a tire effect which isn't modeled into AC. Even if I knew how much the force needs to change, I couldn't do *anything* about it.