NoGripRacing.com

Go Back   NoGripRacing Forums > PC Racing > GTR2 > Power and Glory Mod

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 18 February 13, 23:18   #1
Sledgehammer427
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default GT40 MkII Le Mans speed

Hello, first post but I've been following and using PnG for a long while now.

I wondered if anyone else has spotted this but I thought I'd try, but I have a book "Go Like Hell" by A.J. Baime, detailing the battle between Ford and Ferrari at Le Mans, and in said book, it is reported that the GT40 Mk2's went about 215-220 MPH down the Mulsanne straight, my most genuine attempt netted me 204, and I was wondering about it.
I
'm not at all complaining, the Group C mod I tool around in goes nowhere near 240 MPH like the real ones down Mulsanne either.

I was just wondering if, or how, anything could be done to make these GT's go as fast as their real-life counterparts.

Thank you guys for PnG3, it's incredible and I haven't even scratched the surface!
Sledgehammer427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 February 13, 23:47   #2
mirrorman
 
mirrorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Almada - Portugal
Default

Several things may have to do with that "difference" maybe the power and torque of the true cars that achieved so were bigger... maybe the cars were lighter... maybe the drag ratio of the 3d model is bigger then the true one... maybe the track was warmer... maybe the tyres were trully more performing then those of the simulator... lots . of possible maybes... dont forget you are using a simulator that is not equal to a real car unless a perfect tunning would be achieved and that only would be possible if the tunning was made only to achieve a perfect alikeness to the true car,, and for that.. you would probably also need to be ryding the true car... to have a way to compare the behaviour... so.. we may tune the cars the best possible to try to make it behave like the real deal.. but... it will not be in this simulator or any arcade one that you will ever reach that perfection.. . a true like life simulator.. may have a lot of the theory and some of the routines and logics used in this type of almost acrade simulators.. but they are some steps further .. and will shurely be much more costly in man hours, hardware and fine tuning (and most specially they are tuned only for some given specific car models and the tuning needed to achieve such likeness to simulating any other car would again need many hours of retuning and recalculation... So... it is not thar extraordinary that you dont get with every car of the game the performances that every car achieves in true life... but with some.. we will shurelly have the luck to get close...

Of course that, if one knows how the setups on the several files that try to duplicate the behaviour of each model, affects their performance.. then one may try to change those settings... and go after the limits that he knows that machine could trully achieve.. but that will take him out of the online racing possibility.. since that thedifferent config of the cars will not be accepted on online tournaments...
mirrorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 February 13, 00:31   #3
David Wright
 
David Wright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Default

"Go Like Hell" is a very good read but reports of the 66 Mk2 reaching 215-220 mph without a draft or a following wind are exaggerated. 205 mph is the figure Ford quote. It would take the Mk4 to reach the speeds quoted in "Go Like Hell".
David Wright is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 February 13, 05:12   #4
Sledgehammer427
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

David, you are correct, I would call that my mistake. too bad I can't find an ai driver I trust well enough to draft with. shucks. thanks for the responses guys!
Sledgehammer427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 February 13, 10:52   #5
John Green
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Woking - home to McLaren
Default

Truly amazing - yet again.

Ford quote undrafted GT40 at 205mph.
PnG GT40 204mph.

I bow before the masters.
John Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 February 13, 12:44   #6
skiffle
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wright View Post
"Go Like Hell" is a very good read but reports of the 66 Mk2 reaching 215-220 mph without a draft or a following wind are exaggerated. 205 mph is the figure Ford quote. It would take the Mk4 to reach the speeds quoted in "Go Like Hell".
Even the Mark 4 never quite reached the top end of those claimed figures - the speed trap data from Le Mans indicates that the highest speed they reached was 212.6mph, whilst the Mark 2 was measured at 201.5mph during the race and 198.4mph in qualifying.
skiffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 February 13, 13:26   #7
David Wright
 
David Wright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Green View Post
Truly amazing - yet again.

Ford quote undrafted GT40 at 205mph.
PnG GT40 204mph.

I bow before the masters.
I think we have to be honest and admit there is always uncertainty concerning things like maximum speed. As I've already mentioned, prevailing wind and drafting will have a marked effect on reported speeds. Power output also varied between engines. Ford quoted 485 bhp for the 1966 Le Mans engines, but the winner had the lowest output of the 12 produced - 469 bhp on the dyno and who knows what after 24 hours of racing.

You might think that Le Mans would help these issues as they had a radar speed-trap on the Mulsanne straight. Unfortunately they chose to position it at the 4.4 km point - rather short of where cars like the GT40 Mk2 reached their maximum speed. So not surprisingly the speed recorded was only 201.5 mph.

The figure of 205 mph comes from an article "Portrait of the Le Mans Winner - Technical Analysis" in the October 66 edition of Road & Track. It includes a graph of speed over distance for the GT Mk2 at the Le Mans practice day. The text states the same gearing was used for the race, and the tech spec also states 205 mph @ 6200 rpm.

However, a long time after the Mk2 physics were produced I bought a book "The Inside Story of the Fastest Fords" by Karl Ludvigsen which has data from the 1966 Le Mans race which indicates a maximum speed of 210 mph at 6100 rpm and has different gearing to that used at the Le Mans test.

So at some point we will revisit the GT40 Mk2 physics and give the car a boost in top speed and different gearing, but it still won't be going at 220 mph

What I'm saying in general is we really try hard to research the physics. We do not rely on internet sources - we use as much period data as we can get our hands on buying hundreds of pounds worth of books and magazines from the 60s and 70s. However, there is always a level of uncertainty and there are always new pieces of information arriving to help to put the jigsaw together. It is a never-ending process
David Wright is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 February 13, 16:38   #8
jgf
 
jgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 64
Default

Top speeds are also greatly affected by ambient temperature, track temperature, humidity, and air pressure. Even if the combined effect is only 2% that equates to +/- 4mph at 200mph speeds.

In Friedman's book "Shelby GT40" Bob Bondurant states "I drove the Rob Walker entered car at LeMans in 1965 and that car worked great. ... I got that car up to 212mph on the straight and my balls grew a little bit when I had to brake to 30mph for the hairpin..."

Haynes GT40 Profile lists the top speeds as:
1964 prototype - 197mph
1966 MkIIA - 215mph
1966 GT40 - 195mph
1969 Gulf GT40 - 210mph

Last edited by jgf; 20 February 13 at 16:51.
jgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 February 13, 02:16   #9
David Wright
 
David Wright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgf View Post
In Friedman's book "Shelby GT40" Bob Bondurant states "I drove the Rob Walker entered car at LeMans in 1965 and that car worked great. ... I got that car up to 212mph on the straight and my balls grew a little bit when I had to brake to 30mph for the hairpin..."
If the 4.7 litre 390 bhp GT40 could really reach 212 mph unassisted then Ford would not have needed the 7 litre 485 bhp Mk2

The other variable we've not talked about so far is speed measurement. All the drivers had was a tachometer. These were not perfectly accurate. Then if you want to work out speed you need to know the rolling radius of the tyre (affected by tyre pressure and wear) and its growth at 200 mph.
David Wright is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 February 13, 05:11   #10
jgf
 
jgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 64
Default

The hp of the 427 in the MkIIs has long been debated. Ford variously claimed 450-500hp; contemporary articles with comments from drivers and/or mechanics almost always referenced 525-565hp. 450hp is easily attainable from a near stock 427FE, and NASCAR routinely pulled 500+hp from them. Carroll Shelby states the engines prepared for Daytona in '66 were 500hp. The owner of the last MkII I drove said it was 525hp. For comparison, my '68 Mustang 427FE was rated at 460hp (though Ford advertising, for insurance purposes, claimed 390hp).

In the book Bondurant said nothing of the circumstances, but it's possible with a draft he might have hit 212. Unlike many other pure race cars, Ford GTs did have speedometers, though they were positioned off to the side and I've no idea how accurate they were (and at such speeds I certainly wouldn't be peering around the dash trying to read a speedometer).
jgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 February 13, 10:30   #11
David Wright
 
David Wright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Default

Ah yes, the murky fog of power output. Something else I've struggled with for P&G

The R&T article on the Mk2 gives plotted power curves for the engine during 66, starting at 449 pre Daytona, 463 for Daytona, 471 for Sebring and 485 for Le Mans.

My understanding is part of the discrepancy compared with NASCAR was the use of lower octane fuel in FIA events. Also the use of aluminium heads reduced power output. For 67 and the Mk2B and the Mk4, Ford used cast iron heads to get power above 500 bhp. Finally I would guess the need to run for 24 hours would make Ford more conservative on compression ratios for the Mk2 engines over the NASCAR engines.

Then we have systems of power measurement - the SAE method used in the 60s in the US gave gross power while the DIN net power method was more commonly used in Europe and the difference was typically 10-15%. Having said this, racing engines don't usually have fans, air cleaners and restrictive exhaust systems so the difference should be smaller.

In Racing in the Rain, John Horsman talks about a 5 litre engine they had prepared by All American Racers which they used for the 69 Gulf GT40. It was claimed to produce 470 bhp but performed no better than their normal engine which produced 445 bhp. When later tested on their own dyno (after racing it must be admitted) it produced 435 bhp, the same as their normal engine after racing. This discrepancy between dynos could be down to method or it could just be down to dyno calibration.

Then there is the issue of the metric horsepower used in Germany and Italy which is about 1.4% less than its British or US equivalent.

We've already touched on the issue that power varied between nominally engines tested on the same dyno i.e. production variations.

And finally we have the issue of honesty. Ferrari were often accused of being optimistic or dishonest about power outputs but if they were, they were not alone. Those two pillars of the British establishment, Aston Martin and Jaguar, both made dishonest claims for engine power output during the 60s.

So in summary, we don't really know how fast they went nor how much power they had

As to speedometers - the GT40 had a speedo because it was a production car. They were normally not connected because they were calibrated for road tyres and road final drive ratios. I have thought about making them non functional for P&G but wonder what the reaction might be - a lot of bug reports maybe
David Wright is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 February 13, 12:57   #12
jimmymack
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Default

'Go Like Hell' is writen like a novel and sometimes sacrifices accuracy for impact.

The top speeds are one thing, it also mentions Surtees arriving at Le Mans in 66 to find Scarfiotti's name painted on his car. Ferrari never put driver names on their cars at the time.

220mph for a MkII would be pretty optimistic, bearing in mind the Porsche 917 Langheck was 'only' doing 236MPH 5 years later.
jimmymack is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 February 13, 23:53   #13
David A
 
David A's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default

I love this stuff. This is a really good topic for a thread. I'm gonna go drive now.
David A is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 February 13, 00:38   #14
jgf
 
jgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmymack View Post
....
220mph for a MkII would be pretty optimistic, bearing in mind the Porsche 917 Langheck was 'only' doing 236MPH 5 years later.
But a 917L was longer, lower, and lighter than a MkII. Even with the same hp it would be faster on a long straight.
jgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 February 13, 01:29   #15
jgf
 
jgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wright View Post
...
As to speedometers - the GT40 had a speedo because it was a production car. They were normally not connected because they were calibrated for road tyres and road final drive ratios. I have thought about making them non functional for P&G but wonder what the reaction might be - a lot of bug reports maybe
True, many factors come into play when assessing engine power. Even dyno testing on consecutive days can produce varying results. And a NASCAR engine only had to hold up, at most, for 4-5 hours at Daytona; though some teams hadn't the time or money for complete rebuilds and an engine might have to last for several races. But Bruce McLaren frequently stated the MkIIs had 525hp (a little psychological warfare for the Ferrari crowd? who knows).

I would consider the MkIII a production car, all others were purpose built race cars. The last one I drove (chassis 1012, in my avatar, at the time owned by a local attorney (http://emotion-automobiles.com/gt40/)) did have a working speedometer, if memory serves me well it went to 220mph; but I've no recollection if others did. (Once on track I paid scant attention to gauges, driving and shifting by the sound and feel of the car.)

Yes, I can see the bug reports piling up, even if the docs clearly stated the speedo was for show only. Best to leave it as it is.

Now, if someone could just produce a MkIV for P&G...
jgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 February 13, 20:17   #16
benzman
 
benzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Default

I once read that the D-Type Jaguar had a speedo because Le Mans regulations said that cars had to be theoretically road legal. Perhaps this is why the GT40 has a speedo?
benzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 February 13, 06:51   #17
Sledgehammer427
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

" So at some point we will revisit the GT40
Mk2 physics and give the car a boost in top
speed and different gearing, but it still
won't be going at 220 mph"

I love the sound of that. my dream car was and always will be the Gt40 mk2. and admittedly 220 was overoptimistic but I hadn't read the book in a while and I kinda forgot the number. 210 is the catch-speed. honestly I'm amazed Ford.managed to coax 200 out of a 4-speed, but the torque on the 427... crazy stuff. there's a video on youtube from the 1966 Les Mans and the track is pure sound. those motors were SCREAMING down mulsanne. it gave me goosebumps. also included are some tracks including a 3:30 am pitstop in the n2 pit and the final announcement of the winner. amazing recordings
Sledgehammer427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 February 13, 09:03   #18
animal ed
 
animal ed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wright View Post
...

You might think that Le Mans would help these issues as they had a radar speed-trap on the Mulsanne straight. Unfortunately they chose to position it at the 4.4 km point - rather short of where cars like the GT40 Mk2 reached their maximum speed. So not surprisingly the speed recorded was only 201.5 mph.
...
In this video Peter Sadler says they lift off for fast right hander on Mulsanne straight and that they approach to the Mulsanne corner with same speed as they had in previously mentioned right hander. It`s not about numbers (almost 240mph, hmmm?) also not about different model with smaller engine, it`s about statement that he actually reach top speed before end of Mulsanne straght, most likely in that 4,4 km point that you mention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmA01dUhdPY

Last edited by animal ed; 23 February 13 at 09:05. Reason: video not visible, just link pasted
animal ed is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 February 13, 10:59   #19
David Wright
 
David Wright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by animal ed View Post
In this video Peter Sadler says they lift off for fast right hander on Mulsanne straight and that they approach to the Mulsanne corner with same speed as they had in previously mentioned right hander. It`s not about numbers (almost 240mph, hmmm?) also not about different model with smaller engine, it`s about statement that he actually reach top speed before end of Mulsanne straght, most likely in that 4,4 km point that you mention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmA01dUhdPY
That's not Peter Sadler - that's Vic Elford. He was driving the long tail Porsche 917 in 1969. Thats why he's talking about approaching 240 mph. The 917 wasn't stable enough to take the kink flat out in 69.

The 4.4 km point is almost 2km short of the kink.
David Wright is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 February 13, 23:03   #20
Sledgehammer427
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

Speaking of Mk2's and Le Mans, another interesting thing I'd like to point out is that the "Le Mans" track I am trying these speeds out on is the 60_Lemans found HERE
I love the track and the immersion is top notch. in this one the GT40's aren't hitting the brakes on Mulsanne and I'm enjoying their company. the problem is the kink. I know the .AIW for the track is built for high-downforce tight-suspension supercars, and the kink kills it. the Mark 2's take the kink flat out, skid off the track, go THROUGH the invisible wall (Which I've smacked into just fine) and fall into oblivion. it's quite painful to be the only one who knows how to take the kink on the whole field.
Sledgehammer427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 February 13, 23:48   #21
dartguy
 
dartguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Louisville
Age: 46
Default

Have you tried the VLM Le Mans, Sledge? No? You need to. Trust me.
dartguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 February 13, 00:06   #22
Sledgehammer427
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

I have. I wish they had a pre 1969 version. I love the tracks they've done but I am a stickler for adhering to the tracks the cars raced on. I'm a very boring individual.
Sledgehammer427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 February 13, 01:00   #23
jgf
 
jgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wright View Post
... The 917 wasn't stable enough to take the kink flat out in 69.....
The early 917s were considered "widow makers" for their notorious instability at high speeds. Porsche built a car whose aerodynamics weren't equivalent to its speed; it took several seasons, and several demolished cars, for the handling to catch up with the high power and low drag. Such was their reputation that even after they were proven winners some drivers refused seat time in them.
jgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 February 13, 01:11   #24
jgf
 
jgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sledgehammer427 View Post
.... the problem is the kink. I know the .AIW for the track is built for high-downforce tight-suspension supercars, and the kink kills it. ....
There are several AIW editors available, perhaps you could create a P&G AIW file?
jgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 February 13, 01:21   #25
Sledgehammer427
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgf View Post
There are several AIW editors available, perhaps you could create a P&G AIW file?
First submarines, then airplanes, then battleships, now Racers. I don't see why the hell not. might take me a while though.
especially because I can't find a single .aiw editor. already off to a great start

Last edited by Sledgehammer427; 24 February 13 at 01:38.
Sledgehammer427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 February 13, 04:51   #26
jgf
 
jgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 64
Default

Here's a start, the ISI dev editor.

http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.ph...ght=aiw+editor

There's another called JImola, which I've heard is not easy to use but works directly with GTR2. And one for F1 2002 (AIWProg) which supposedly also works for GTR2.

I've not tried any of these, nowdays preferring to drive (or fly) rather than tweak.
jgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 February 13, 13:12   #27
jimmymack
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Default

Apparently it was actually John Wyer's Gulf team that came up with the changes to the rear bodyworks that solved the instability.

Porsche through they had solved it, and told the drivers it was fixed but they'd been testing the cars on a track where the 917's could only get up to 175mph, and all the really big problems started when they were going faster.
jimmymack is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 26 February 13, 00:15   #28
David Wright
 
David Wright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Default

Wyer's team sorted out the short-tailed cars aerodynamic issues. Porsche sorted out the long-tail aerodynamic issues.
David Wright is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 14, 20:31   #29
unfairlane
 
unfairlane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Default

jgf is correct about the 427`s hp, though it is a point to differ between high- and mid-rise intakes and low-risers used in production-cars. The Gt40II`s came with mid-rise intakes that made easily 550hp but most of all a lot of torque=top speed. Those enegines could take a full size Galaxie up to 200mph,

Both the enegines as well as the GT40`s were built in California by Holman-Moody. They were as far from "Production cars" as anything can be.
unfairlane is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 May 14, 13:51   #30
Mogget
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ulverston, England
Age: 50
Default

If the real MkII's handling was anything like the P&G3 version, then I wouldn't be surprised if every wife of a Le Mans MkII driver became a widow.
Mogget is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 May 14, 16:50   #31
jgf
 
jgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mogget View Post
If the real MkII's handling was anything like the P&G3 version, then I wouldn't be surprised if every wife of a Le Mans MkII driver became a widow.
The Ford MkII was actually a quite docile and predictable car if you drive it properly. It has more torque than the rear wheels can handle so it's very easy to get out of line, and you must get the brakes warmed up. This car's main forte is its acceleration, learn just how much throttle to use exiting a corner and it will leave everyone in the dust. In 2nd gear at 70mph you floor the throttle and the car would do a 180 spin in a heartbeat; on some tracks you never used first gear because it was just too easy to break loose the rear end.

Bruce McLaren said of the MkIIs at Lemans, "This car will out accelerate, outbrake, and out handle any other car on the track."

An interesting comment from Dick Hutcherson about the MkII at Lemans, "In 1966 there wasn't no guard rails or nothin', just trees - which people used to hit rather regularly - linin' the race track. When it started raining, I told John Holman that if he wanted that sucker to go any faster he better put someone else in there because I was slowin' my ass down. He said, 'Just keep it on the road, Hutch.' Ken Miles and them guys drove faster in the rain than they did in the dry, but I'd never driven a race in the rain. There were times when I was runnin' down the Mulsanne, in the rain, at night, at over 200mph, where I thought, "What the f**k am I doing here?"

The main issue with the MkII in P&G is that you can't feel the car - the acceleration, the body roll, the weight shift - all things you unconsciously note and compensate for while driving. So you must learn to "sim drive" it.
jgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 May 14, 19:15   #32
David Wright
 
David Wright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Default

I am currently working on an improved Mk2. It now does 212 mph on the Mulsanne straight. I am working on improving the handling. But the Mk2 was a heavy car - 37% heavier than the Porsche 917 for example and more than twice as heavy as a Lotus 49. It will always feel somewhat cumbersome.
David Wright is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 June 14, 18:33   #33
Mogget
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ulverston, England
Age: 50
Default

I would rather leave it in the garage, and drive the Gulf MkI. Now that's a car I love to drive
Mogget is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 June 14, 21:00   #34
jgf
 
jgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 64
Default

The MkI was a better balanced car, so was easier to drive; but it didn't have the power to take on the Ferraris and Porsches of the day. The MkII had the power, but along with it came the extra weight and mass of that big 427FE in the rear.
jgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 June 14, 06:59   #35
ABRMotorsports
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgf View Post
Now, if someone could just produce a MkIV for P&G...
That's EXACTLY what I've spent the better part of my day searching for. Just got back into GTR2 yesterday after not playing it for years, and just put PnG on it today. Gotta say, PnG is in my opinion, greater than the original game, But I do so miss the MkIV.

Too bad I have no idea how to build cars (or anything else for that matter) for this game, Or I would give it a shot.
ABRMotorsports is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 February 18, 23:41   #36
bullitt5435
 
bullitt5435's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Savannah GA
Default

Ok. All that's fine, and I've talked to Brian Redman, David Hobbs, and others who raced various GT-40's who all claimed top speeds between 215 and 220, and I can understand why there is so much discussion about it. But the Cobras are wrong as well. Cobra 289 FIA roadsters topped at 165, and Daytona Coupes at 185. Those cars won't get anywhere close to that in the game, and the Corvette Grand Sport also got to 185-190. Also, the brakes on all these cars in the game are a joke. You jump off the gas and on the brake, and the car barely slows down, and slews all over the place. If you got so many of the same things wrong that GTL did, why bother?
bullitt5435 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 February 18, 22:28   #37
DucFreak
 
DucFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Age: 42
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullitt5435 View Post
Ok. All that's fine, and I've talked to Brian Redman, David Hobbs, and others who raced various GT-40's who all claimed top speeds between 215 and 220, and I can understand why there is so much discussion about it. But the Cobras are wrong as well. Cobra 289 FIA roadsters topped at 165, and Daytona Coupes at 185. Those cars won't get anywhere close to that in the game, and the Corvette Grand Sport also got to 185-190. Also, the brakes on all these cars in the game are a joke. You jump off the gas and on the brake, and the car barely slows down, and slews all over the place. If you got so many of the same things wrong that GTL did, why bother?
You know, some years ago you'd have had someone in the team justifying why things were made the way they are, down to the tyniest detail. We're the first to admit it isn't perfect (it never will be).
But then, you're quite right. ...why bother?

Most of the team spent well over 6 years around this project up and untill it matured to the third (and final) release. Actually, some still did until recently (over a decade later since start of the project).
When you spend that much time around it, researching (endlessly?), and improving your own craft (whatever that happens to be in the team, for the project), willingly sacrificing your own free time, sometimes even at the cost of commercial projects that could (and were) happening in parallel at the same time, all to atempt something that, quite frankly, I haven't seen bettered anywhere else even on individual basis (much less in such a vast package), then I guess that, when reading your post (and a few others), to me, it does certainly beg the question: "why the frak did we bother?"
....Indeed.

To that, I think I'd only add this: http://www.nogripracing.com/forum/sh...86&postcount=9

In anycase, I think I speak for the rest of the team (and users/followers of P&G) when I say that it is appreciated the way you input your interest, regardless of agreement or disagreement with the content we brought up for P&G.
DucFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 February 18, 00:13   #38
bullitt5435
 
bullitt5435's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Savannah GA
Default

That's fine, and I know how I sound when I'm frustrated, but just answer this question. Why did you not allow for adjusting the gearing in the cars, like you can do in the regular GTR2 game, and which is mandatory in any real racing to get the car to perform properly on different types of tracks. How difficult would that have been? That one simple adjustment would have eliminated all this discussion.
bullitt5435 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 February 18, 01:39   #39
bob gnarley
 
bob gnarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Noah vale
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullitt5435 View Post
That's fine, and I know how I sound when I'm frustrated
Yep, rude.

Firstly all of your questions have been asked before and answered in detail in the support threads, where you will find pages and pages, pretty much every individual question answered by a member of the GTLW team.

Secondly, as it's based on GTR2 you can simply use Notepad to edit the gearing in the.HDC file of any car you like, create a balanced field or whatever.

If I remember right, if a car had easily interchangeable ratios, you will find this in game. If it was difficult, ie swop the box, in-game ratios are locked. Something like that anyway.

This is a free work of epic proportions, Try not to kill the enthusiasm that created it. Cheers!
bob gnarley is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 13 February 18, 21:08   #40
DucFreak
 
DucFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Age: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullitt5435 View Post
That's fine, and I know how I sound when I'm frustrated, but just answer this question. Why did you not allow for adjusting the gearing in the cars, like you can do in the regular GTR2 game, and which is mandatory in any real racing to get the car to perform properly on different types of tracks. How difficult would that have been? That one simple adjustment would have eliminated all this discussion.
Adding to what Bob Gnarley already said (the post right after yours), particularly for the case of the MkII 1966 you could have made a simple research in the manual of the Ford GT40 (MkI 1966 –1969 & MkII 1966) which has been made available. It would've answer that and other questions.
That manual is one of the few still available from the given list of P&G manuals and articles from HERE.
To quote the mentioned manual, and in the case of the MKII 1966:
Quote:

GEARING

The Kar-Kraft T-44 4-speed gearbox has fixed ratios for each gear but a range of final drive ratios. The strange numbers in the display are a result of the final drive ratio being combined with a transfer drive. It was based on Ford Galaxie components and has excellent synchromesh for those worried about double de-clutching.

The GT MkII is supplied with a range of final drive ratios to let it be used at a wide range of tracks. It is perhaps worth remembering though that in 1966 it was never raced with ratios lower than the top three ratios available. With the lowest ratios, putting the power down becomes more problematic and the effect of the heavy engine’s rotary inertia and engine braking when you lift off the throttle also become more pronounced.
As you may have found out, every single car in P&G is supposed to have individual and final gear ratios exactly as per information exhistent for the given car. In some cases, it goes down to particular, single unit (not just car model). If you believe that there are certain ratios not being used, that means our research has not delivered such info.

If you have factual proof that it is incorrect, then feel free to point it out.
Right now, and personally, I believe in the data used for P&G (by David Wright, Aristotelis Vasilakos, and others) and I'll stick to that.
.

Last edited by DucFreak; 13 February 18 at 21:33. Reason: ...spelling(?)
DucFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 23:37.
Home - Top

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

www.nogripracing.com 2003 - 2018
Page generated in 0.06785 seconds with 10 queries