You should stop spewing false information. There's a few vehicles I've worked on where downforce works great. How can planes fly in BeamNG if there's no lift/downforce?
i never said downforce *doesn't work* - i'm real happy that planes fly and all. i don't know the physics of airplanes, but it looks like estama did good work there. sturmovik said: i'm just saying that putting a tiny rear spoiler on the bolide (which is pretty much all i've seen as far as released cars with downforce-enhancing attachments) isn't going to do jack shit unless you're doing a full-speed run on the grid map. 1) it's extremely difficult to *reach* 80+ mph let alone maintain the speeds where downforce can even approach useful range because most tracks are too bumpy or not designed for high speed racing. but more importantly, 2) the way cars lose grip is not correct, so much so that i've never seen a car take a corner at a reasonable speed without losing grip, even with friction coefficients jacked way up. high downforce would not noticeably change the way a car drives around a track because the grip just isn't there. why are you being hostile? what is bullshit about my post? i don't think we have a mechanism to measure downforce. i would be happy to run some tests and redact my post if it's factually wrong.
My issue is that you're basing all of your claims on a mod done to the Bolide, of all vehicles. Have you personally tried adding downforce to a car? If you do it proper in the jbeams, it's amazing the difference it makes. It's also not hard to reach 80 mph at all. What are you smoking? Quit using maps like Dry Rock Island where the road is shaped in T3D or L3DT. Mesh maps are where it's at.
+1 Ford Capri without downforce: completely undrivable Ford Capri with downforce: completely and easily driveable with less weight and WAY more power than the Bolide. Deject3d: Don't base your opinion on 1 or 2 mods. Also, I did 130mph in the Bolide LONG before the public release, so yeah... if 80mph is impossible for you, you might have to take driving lessons...
Now that we've cleared up the downforce thing, we have to admit that the tire's friction model still needs some improvements (again, I understand it's still an early release)? Or is that just me? Also, I agree with eject3d and that you guys are kinda gutting him there. He posted his opinion, which may have been wrong, but you guys weren't nice about correcting him.
Show me how I was mean. Please. You're german remember, so I don't think English is your first language. The tires need work, of course. However, a LOT of how the vehicle drives is dependent on many things. Try not to judge JUST Gabe's cars, with a keyboard no less.
and Well, I have driven various other cars with a G27 and am not judging just by Gabe's cars (which are awesome, btw), but what I'm talking about is more or less the way the tires' friction is handled. Take iRacing, for example: heat, pressure, tire compound, and bending/warping of the tires are all taken into account. Now obviously computing power becomes a problem, so BeamNG will probably never have the same level of tire accuracy. But still, this does have an affect on the handling.
It wasn't mean in the sense that it'll make me cry, but it's the stuff that gets people into heated discussions. There's no need to write like that. Yet your location is set to "inside your mom"
Is that mean as well? @ Below: Seriously? Can you not pick up on anything resembling sarcasm? People hanging on every single word someone says and taking it as 110% serious IS the reason stupid, petty little arguments like this happen.
I did some tests. first, i thought you guys were right. how can I base my opinion off of only a few mods? so I checked the vehicles section, filtered for "released" and "WIP beta released" well, no mods with spoilers or significant downforce are in there. ok, then i checked the "mods" section and filtered the same. bingo! the bolide GTS with a third party spoiler made by zappymouse. looks great! zappymouse's description of the spoiler was along the lines of providing "some" downforce, but not too much! i primarily drove this section of the coastal road mike22 track because it's fast and smooth and easy to repeat: http://i.imgur.com/nJ3jUql.jpg with the start being in the bottom right corner of that pic, i hit the first apex of the first bend at ~105 mph, maintained that through the start of the second bend, and usually exited at ~90mph. since this is a speed where a wing *should* be reasonably useful. considering these to be rather light bends, i would expect the spoiler to perform very well if this were a real life scenario. i drove with the wing, i drove without the wing. i took it off, put it back on. i drove a lot. to my surprise, i actually found the car to be repeatably more stable at the entrance of the first turn and exit! I was able to hold the accelerator much more aggressively and not slide into the cliffside on the right side of the second bend's exit. now, i could go through the turns just as fast without the spoiler, but it was much less predictable. job well done! test finished! you guys were right! well, no. my first thought was, "how could this be? the car surely felt more stable but the car did not feel it had additional grip" - i was certainly exiting the second bend at a much sharper and more stable angle preventing me from sliding too much and hitting the cliff, but why? i'm not a physicist, i am dumb and don't know how to measure the actual downforce in newtons that the spoiler is providing, but I can check the jbeam file... (imported from here) i'm not jbeam expert, but the wing.jbeam appears to have a drag coefficient of 35? w-w-w-what? isn't a coefficient supposed to be a pretty small number? according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient a 'streamlined half body' resembling a wing should have a drag coefficient of 0.09. usually this game's jbeams measure in standard notations, suspensions being newtons, etc. i checked the gabester vehicles to check out their drag coefficients. oddly enough, individual parts like the "mirrors.jbeam" had no drag coefficients, but the drag was listed in total in the main jbeam file. the grand marshal has total drag coefficient of 8, and the van has a whopping 12. now this i don't understand. wiki says: "The average modern automobile achieves a drag coefficient of between 0.30 and 0.35. SUVs, with their typically boxy shapes, typically achieve a Cd=0.35–0.45." i do not at all understand what units are being used in these jbeams, but i know that if the entire van has a drag coefficient of whatever arbitrary number "12" is supposed to represent and the spoiler on the bolide gts is "35" it really makes me wonder. so i considered, perhaps the wing is providing directional stability more than anything. the car was, afterall, more stable feeling from 50mph+. could the stability have been produced by downforce? or simply just aerodynamics allowing me to maintain a sharper angle throughout a turn and exit more aggressively? there's really no way to calculate the downforce in newtons and determine if it was actually having a usable effect, but i attempted to test my idea of the wing providing only better directional stability. it's hard to come up with a real test for this, but here's my silly attempt. rocket plane with side wings deleted: http://i.imgur.com/xgVUm2e.jpg wing placed onto bolide GTS: http://i.imgur.com/QNnXGgR.jpg now, i don't even want to get into the issues i found with the rocket plane. the wings had drag coefficients of 10,000+ but drove just fine on the rocket bolide. when the rear stabilizer alone was placed onto the bolide GTS unmodified, the car was undriveable. it would hit about 60 mph before it felt like i was being held back by some unsurmountable force - but damn the thing could take a corner. no idea what is going on there - if the other airplanes in this game have such ludicrous values, then i can't really call the aerodynamics working as intended. so i dropped the drag coefficient on the rocket wings to 35, just to see what would happen. now, remember, this test was supposed to help me get an idea on whether or not the zappymouse's spoiler was providing *aerodynamic stability* to help it take the test corner better, or *downforce that was actually useful and helping me grip the road*. this test is only valid under the idea that the rocket plane spoiler provides little to no downforce, which again, i can't really measure. any downforce granted would *not* be pushed directly onto the rear wheels anyway, so no idea what sort of handling this would cause in real life. well, surprise, with the huge rear tail, the car drove almost the same, if not more stable than with the zappymouse wing. shit, the bolide GTS with the rocket plane's rear tail was so stable that i'm about to go mount it on every car i drive. why don't race car drivers have these? so, is downforce having an effect? IN THIS CASE, i do not believe so. well, of course, these small informal tests don't say too much about realism, but they seem to reinforce my idea that the spoiler doesn't really help. any increase in driveability is probably not a result of actual downforce. but only so few tests? that's not nearly enough. so i kept looking for more cars to test against as per your guys' advice... first page of mods, second page... third page... well shit. the only other car i found with a spoiler was the non-rocket-plane FT40r. the spoiler on it had a drag coef of... well... i can't tell. there are 3 numbers in the super_wing.jbeam and i don't know which coefficients are for which beams, but the numbers are 5000, 0, and 800. regardless, i noticed *absolutely no difference* in driving with the FT40r spoiler, but that's probably just because the car understeers like a bitch no matter what. if you find any obvious issues with these tests, know how to calculate actual downforce in this game, have an idea for me test, or know of any other cars/vehicles to test with, please do respond. i really do want to know the truth. ----------- i've never seen you race. beat my 7 month old laptime with the stock bolide around small island please: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0WsKMQg_So if you beat that, you can try to move up to my ~1:45 bolide FT40r laptime. and if you beat that laptime, i'll send you my sloppily thrown together race covet to see if you can beat my ~1:30 lap. then maybe i will pay any attention to your "wow this unreleased car whose aerodynamics could be completely out of this world is impossible to handle without its aero!" comment. how do i know you aren't just shit at driving, like you're assuming with me? give me more mods edit: don't give me more mods. you can put anything you want in the jbeam that may or may not be realistic at all. give me gabester mods.
That's how it works man. The aero isn't perfect by any means, but give it a little more credit. Things will get better. Look at the plane that DSam made..
i tested what i could with the materials that were available to me. i have learned that aerodynamics have more of an effect than i previously thought, but all of my previous points are still valid. you will notice that when i was speaking directly to sturmovik, i only mentioned default track because they represent the default game experience. he chose to use the bolide gts as an example of a car with usable downforce, and all i did was explain that the benefits of downforce are easily negated by the current friction model except in extreme circumstances. looking forward to race update.
I love all these arguments about problems we fixed 6 months ago. Just wait for the update, please. FYI: The dragCoef value is the .jbeam is NOT the same drag coefficient value you see reported for cars. It's a value, per collision triangle, and the aerodynamic physics calculate the lift/downforce/etc. based on the physical shape and that dragCoef value. Drag coefficient measured on a real car is, well, measured, in a wind tunnel. It's not the same value. If you take the dragCoef of a standard BeamNG car (let's say 8) and change it to 0, you will get exactly as much top speed increase as you would expect aerodynamic drag to take away from a real car - about 10-20%.
Just to be fair on these people, they haven't exactly seen these changes in a meaningful way. I can kinda see where they're coming from. Currently they don't have the fixes so they can only give feedback about the old driving physics. I'd expect many, many more of these arguments
From what I've gathered then by deject3d's research (which was awesome, btw) is that instead of providing much downforce (force pushing down), you're actually getting more of an effect of what the rudder on a plane does by using those spoilers then? Well, either way, I'm waiting for the race update to see more physics smashing NGGngngng.
