Cars Porsche 911 Singer 1.2 (csp)

[jlnprssnr]

if you are trying to make the car to be realistic specifications, then stick to the default values.

all the big moders here.
and just they are asking for donation. LOOL

Do you have any glimpse of an idea how much work is put into a mod of this quality? I guess you don't have any experience with 3D and 2D graphic design as you had to reupload eboos work. Kyuubeey has studied car physics for years and has access to data about several Porsches and knows their behaviour deeply. You come along and find one inaccuracy that's down to missing data where they had to make an educated guess based on their years of experience. At the same time you came along and posted one of those 'improved' mods like they circulate in questionable Facebook groups. And you even dared to include a donation button. Tell us, what data did you have from the race team about the Hillclimb car? Engine dyno curves? Spring and damper info from KW? Brake spec sheet? I have my doubts.

 

[Sanio Alfa]

Do you have any glimpse of an idea how much work is put into a mod of this quality? I guess you don't have any experience with 3D and 2D graphic design as you had to reupload eboos work. Kyuubeey has studied car physics for years and has access to data about several Porsches and knows their behaviour deeply. You come along and find one inaccuracy that's down to missing data where they had to make an educated guess based on their years of experience. At the same time you came along and posted one of those 'improved' mods like they circulate in questionable Facebook groups. And you even dared to include a donation button. Tell us, what data did you have from the race team about the Hillclimb car? Engine dyno curves? Spring and damper info from KW? Brake spec sheet? I have my doubts.

[deleted by moderator]

 

[Sanio Alfa]

For the 993RS and TT it's 322. If you can leave with it. The reason being, maybe, the car having a lot of weight at the back?

in Road & Track Magazine specifications about test this car on laguna seca said brake rotors have this spec;
front 12,7in - 322mm
rear 11,8in - 300mm

 

[oliver65]

If it can be of any help, this is what I get to see (after a very short flash of how it should look):

I have the same issue. Have Content Manager with csp version 205.

 

[Kyuubeey]

There's at least two, maybe three brake specs we know of for this car. "Big brake", "Carbon". I'm not surprised if there's one more spec. All we know is, they said they use rotors and calipers from the 993T. Could be only for front, both axles, we don't know.

So I'm not surprised if sometimes, being a custom car and all, they would decide to go for "Big brake" in the front and something else in the rear. We just don't know, and all of these data sheets vary from year to year a bit.

Main thing I want to know is how less power is going to make the acceleration values faster and line up with the data. Unless the higher final has such a large effect.

EDIT:

390 x 2.048 x 3.444 = 2750.7
331.5 x 2.048 x 4.000 = 2715.6

Peak-power wise, the new spec makes a bit less power, and also shifts up to a higher, less powerful gear sooner. So, yeah...

 

[Ben O'Bro]

I have the same issue. Have Content Manager with csp version 205.

Fanapryde noticed it's happening to my Caterhams
i'm not using the 205, but the 185, same as the one needed for Sol
it seems to be related to CSP, please report the issue there

 

[dud]

964 doesn't make net lift in the front, it won't change at all with speed.

Are you sure about that? Porsche made some very unfavorable comments about street 911 aerodynamics when launching the 992.

 

[Kyuubeey]

Are you sure about that? Porsche made some very unfavorable comments about street 911 aerodynamics when launching the 992.

EDIT: Oh, I never noticed there's data for the RSR in there. Hmmm.

 

[Sanio Alfa]

here is my test with new engine power, what is now on real spec with 390bhp. time 0-100 on SM tires can not go under 4s. but with slick tyres can go under 3,7s. like and others result is now on specification what in Road & Track Magazine specifications what they are testing on laguna seca. 0-160km/h, 1/4 mile is now corect. they are testing made on slick tyres. so me to was do the same. with SM tyres car loss about 0,5 sec on 0-100 and on 0-160. problem is still on vmax. before was 310km/h, now is 295km/h (after remade engine power from 458bhp to 390bhp). maybe is problem on aero. did not test yet. and yes. in tyre.ini rims was set on 19" not on 17". on 17 car have better results. and 17" is original spec for this car. F225/45/17, R265/40/17.

 

[Kyuubeey]

I put in the current curve I have, but with 13% loss and 4.000 final.

Quarter mile is 12.05s compared to R&T's 11.7 sec.
5 - 60mp/h is 4.5s~ compared to R&T's 3.7 sec.
0 - 60mp/h is 4.27s compared to R&T's 3.3 sec.
0 - 100mp/h is 8.10s compared to R&T's 8.2 sec.

I just compiled the best over some runs.

Interesting is that I don't remember what my 0-60 was for the same run as 0-100 and I think I forgot to write it down, because I left the session to check something and loaded back in to do the 0-100 and quarter mile.

Right now I just did a 4.29 for 0-60, but 8.60 for 0-100. If we assume the 0-60 is 0.50sec too slow, we get 3.80~ for it. It matches up decently.

Topspeed is basically bang on at 7300RPM in 6th for an indicated speed of 283km/h, same as R&T obviously. There is no V-max data presented anywhere.

Test tires R&T used are Michelin Pilot Sport PS2, so basically semislicks. I'm not sure anyone has data for the Hoosiers: maybe Papa does for something similar.

Car pulls basically 1g, but I really don't buy the 0.93g to begin with. Maybe the driver simply can't corner.

Verdict: I'm going to put it down to driver and track surface + ambient condition differences and perhaps too high power loss for an RR car. Power is probably crank indeed. I'm willing to also believe that all of the Singer dynos I was told about were actually calculated crank power: with different assumed power loss it can add up to the wide range of 20hp or so.

 

[Sanio Alfa]

I put in the current curve I have, but with 13% loss and 4.000 final.

13%?
from where you have this info?

 

[Kyuubeey]

13 - 15% is the assumed average power loss for a rear wheel vehicle. In reality you could say it can be anywhere from 1% to 30% or something depending on where you look and when. The number is meaningless and basically an abstraction of the power you probably get to the wheels.

RR might be closer to 11%, actually. Depends on the drivetrain components: racecar with heavier, sturdier parts will have more loss.

 

[AlleyViper]

Fanapryde noticed it's happening to my Caterhams
i'm not using the 205, but the 185, same as the one needed for Sol
it seems to be related to CSP, please report the issue there

OT: The problem is, some newer configs are made with sol 1.4a in mind, for which p205 is recommended. The new p13 car also comes with a private p207 build required for its physics (original p207 was p205 with time attack fixed, which can fail to launch since p164 with some cars). There were also many previous bugs sorted on it, like some rss graphic glitches, that makes it worth to be on latest p205. p185 is actually a bad build to be used, you'll have a giant shaders patch log on every run, with hundreds of debug entries written per second that can cause stutter. If you don't care for the VR(?) fixes introduced in p185, p183 hasn't the log bug and still works with sol 1.3x. On the older builds, probably p198 is more popular, for performance and some fixes since p19x.

For what matters, I haven't seen that bug on single screen with p205 (even enabling non-def. optimizations that cause me issues on other cars). A few pages back I've asked if affected users also had manually changed clip planes on CSP (a likely scenario on VR), but got no answer. I'd at least try with the graphics adjustments page on default settings to see what happens, or temporarily default everything to see if the problem only comes after changing some setting. Messing with shadowmap resolution in particle effects could cause something similar, but on the csp discord Fanapryde told it didn't help.

 

[Abgefahren]

Damn this is a sexy car. A little bit tricky to drive sooo sexy
Thanks to all for your work, you did a great job.
Here's my little video for the Singer, no german gibberish for the first 1.5 minutes

 

[Sanio Alfa]

13 - 15% is the assumed average power loss for a rear wheel vehicle. In reality you could say it can be anywhere from 1% to 30% or something depending on where you look and when. The number is meaningless and basically an abstraction of the power you probably get to the wheels.

RR might be closer to 11%, actually. Depends on the drivetrain components: racecar with heavier, sturdier parts will have more loss.

race car? you mean this is race car? race car is gt2, gt3, etc. cars, which have from 10-15%. car like this have from 15%-25% and more. Im this car work loss with 18%.

I don't understand how all of a sudden you know that t.loss should be included. since you calculated the initial power.ini folder without t.loss. in your power.ini here on this v0.911 you have full power on wheel without t.loss. you must know, in assetto corsa cars take power what you give them with power.ini. if is turbo engine, then necessarily need and engine.ini with turbo spec. ui_car.ini is for graph on Nm and bhp, and for reading led rpm on steering wheel.
but you're not the only one who doesn't know how this works in ac. many modders do not know what they are doing, even the more famous ones.
I hope you learn how to tweak everything properly and we will wait this upgrade mod to v1.0. do not worry, if will not properly made, I will do (DATA REPLACEMENT) for this mod. because in data folder is not only problem in engine power. I made a lot of other updates on other things.

 

[Sanio Alfa]

list
what is expected to improve;
- in skin folder, made under line to connect word and number. for example "044 blue2", need to be "044_blue2". for people who not use CM. in default ui of AC, preview can not be visible.
- can it be functional rear wing? set on some button (like in garage with "0"(zero button)). but not only visual, make it functional. when is out more grip, when is down less grip.

with all the other things that need to be refined, this should be a great mod. it already is, it just needs to be edited.

 

[Sanio Alfa]

list
what is expected to improve;
- in skin folder, made under line to connect word and number. for example "044 blue2", need to be "044_blue2". for people who not use CM. in default ui of AC, preview can not be visible.
- can it be functional rear wing? set on some button (like in garage with "0"(zero button)). but not only visual, make it functional. when is out more grip, when is down less grip.

with all the other things that need to be refined, this should be a great mod. it already is, it just needs to be edited.

and yes abut list.
- in cockpit rpm clock need redline with start on 7300rpm, and over like is now on 8200rpm.

 

[Kyuubeey]

Sanio, I'm not even gonna comment on the earlier posts. Quite ironic. Please do some research before you talk smack, and learning some reading comprehension would probably help.

However, thanks for pointing out the skin issue, if it is one.

The spoiler is already functional, don't you even check anything before you talk? It's a wing controlled linked to angle and the CL and IIRC CD as well changes dynamically. I don't think it can be toggled from inside the car; you need to pull some plugs. So we left it adjustable in setup to account for that, and to make taking some screenshots and video easier, when you want to decide where the spoiler is. The operation isn't 100% correct and can't be made correct.

Please refrain from constantly double/triple posting, there's an edit function.

PS:

 

[Sanio Alfa]

Sanio, I'm not even gonna comment on the earlier posts. Quite ironic.

but you know you are make this version with 458bhp?

 

[Kyuubeey]

but you know you are make this version with 458bhp?

It says it right there in the UI.

However I think the more correct engine would be 385 - 395bhp, with the 4.000 final gear. With warm tires and a good driver, well 0-60 is a bit hard to measure because AC doesn't really launch quite right, but something like 20 - 100km/h should be very very close. My tests were on quite cold tires with 30l, mind you, hence they're a bit slower.

EDIT: Oh, and as to why I was getting correct relatively acceleration numbers before, do the math on 390whp and 3.444 final vs 390bhp and 4.000 final.

The actual torque/power is almost unchanged.