Right now in BeamNG, all the stock cars have a maximum braking G-force of about 1.2, which may sound like a lot (and it is), but still from a 200mph-0 stop takes almost an entire mile, or even more. I'm pretty sure cars in real life would stop a little faster, but that is beside the point. Does anyone know how, other than changing the brake torque on brakes in a jbeam file, to make brakes stop cars faster? I have a nice high power car pack but trying to get these cars to slow down is making them hard to drive actually fast on the stock maps.
Well of course it takes "almost a mile," 200mph is pretty damn fast. Also, it's not just the power of brakes. ABS and wheel lock also factor into sudden stops, both in game and IRL. EDIT: Did not mean to sound sarcastic or rude.
I'm aware that stops from 200 mph take a long time but if you look at high performance cars today, they can stop pretty damn fast. Take this for example (skip to 2:11): 6 seconds to go from 300kmh to 0 (185mph to 0). In the game, it took me about 9 seconds (tested via stopwatch) to stop my Sunburst from that speed. I'm not asking for instant stops at 200mph, but something like what is seen in the video would be nice. You're right about the ABS though. I think the SBR has really aggressive ABS because that's the car I'm mainly complaining about lol.
I played around with ABS in these two files: sbr_suspension_F.jbeam and sbr_suspension_R.jbeam. The values adjusted were ABSthreshold and ABSrate. I compared them with the pickup and sunburst. I couldn't get improved 100-0 performance by adjusting any of those - threshold, rate, or even torque. I stuck with adjusting the Sport values.
I'm not supersized it took you longer to stop in a sedan than a Hyper car. The Sunburst and the One:1 are completely different cars, The One:1 has a lot more stopping force than a sedan equivalent to a Subaru. And how did you even get it to 185MPH. The SBR4 would be closer to the One:1 anyway. Even then it wouldn't get near the stopping force the One:1 has. [Let's pretend] The SBR4 is arguably somewhat equivalent-ish to the Ferrari FF but newer. your wouldn't expect the FF to stop as fast as the One:1, would you? EDIT: I just tested the Sunburst to the Subaru STI and heres what I got. Sunburst 109 ft RS 2009 STI 106 ft Hatchback 2010 STI 108 ft Hatchback 2011 STI 113 ft Sedan 2012 STI 114 ft Hatchback 2013 STI 106 ft Sedan Motor Trend
While the Sunburst (sedan) is mentioned at the top of the post you quoted, Spaceballs says later in that post that the SBR is ... "the car I'm mainly complaining about lol." So FWIW the complaint is [apparently] really about the SBR, a coup with MR layout which is currently the highest end car in the game. You may be right about the accuracy of the cars vs real life and I'm interested in following the conversation!
I know the values are realistic but I am wondering if it is possible within BeamNG's physics simulation to get brakes that are as good or better than the One:1 brakes. The reason is because I'm trying to make supercar versions of the Sunburst and SBR that have massive power, but it kinda sucks if they don't have better brakes to get stopped in time as well.
Actually I tested the SBR later on and while the ABS feels more aggressive, the stopping distances between the SBR and Sunburst are very similar. The SBR is actually a few 1/10th of a second faster to stop from 300kmh.
Don't forget that tire grip is a large factor in stopping distance. More grip means that more braking force can be applied before the wheels lock up.
Yep, weight is important too, it doesn't matter how good your brakes and ABS are if you are driving a tank with bicycle tyres.
Good point to both of you. I'll have to experiment with changing grip values a little. @Slayersen mentioned that BeamNG tire physics are a bit wonky in that wider tires don't actually provide any more lateral traction, it just makes vehicles more stable. So I hope increasing grip is a workable solution.
Removing ABS all together would vastly improve stopping time, the ABS is slow in comparison with real life systems.
To elaborate the relationship between friction and traction don't seem to be impacted by surface area, two tires one half as wide as the other with the same friction coef seem equal in traction and lose grip at exactly the same g force exposure.. meaning surface area only seems to provide greator stabillity. This is only a theory in my expirence the devs would need to confirm this or some testing would need to be done. ---Brakes--- Brakes are odd as well, it'a hard to improve brakes because the ABS simulation is good, but slow, and not suitable for high performance vehicles in said simulation. Brakes are also hard to work with because it's hard to improve the amount of brake torque you can achieve without just making them lock up the tires. Sorry for double post on phone.
As is true in real life. Traction is affected by weight (downward force) and the friction coefficient only. If you increase the surface area, the same weight is distributed over that area, resulting in less pressure per area, which then results in less traction per area.
mhm, but something just seems a bit off about how it all works, I think it's more an issue however that surfaces aren't perfect in their simulation as when you make slicks that work, cars than act like they have ultra traction on dirt. Which is out of the ordinary. Not to mention the obvious lack of any simulation with surface, ambient and tire temperatures, along with the relationship between these factors. Not even brake temps or oil/water temps are simulated, Instead they are either absent or contain a placeholder variable to make gauges for them work.
Admittedly tires in aren't amazing, when I tried to make an all-purpose cannon(wheelies, offroading, drifting and shooting, you know just the normal things like that. I also wanted it to be stanced but couldn't figure out how) the wheels were comparable to pizzas. at low speeds they were fine but at higher speeds they go from dough, to deep-dish, to thin crust.
... the cannon uses hubwheels.. which are terrible for transferring any decent amount of power to the ground, plus they are likely of low jbeam density. Ideally you'd want something more like pressurewheels.
The wheels work good enough for what I want them to do when they aren't turning into pizzas, after all it was never really meant to be too serious of a vehicle and I can still deliver enough power for offroad and wheelies, but I have to drive a fine line between pizza and wheel.
That's fine, but you can't do both things in the same breath (complain about wheel physics and voluntarily use the inferior model). Slayerson was reminding you about what was discussed in your other thread: that the wheels on the cannon are known to be inferior. Those hubwheels do not provide a point of reference in this thread where the discussion revolves around the better pressurewheel model.
yeah, I know I kinda de-railed the thread, I didn't realize at the time though. and I just assumed that the difference with the wheels was just how the tires work, but I'm pretty sure that with the cannon the whole wheel was stretching and when I posted that I completely forgot that the cannon didn't use pressure wheels.
