POS

DANDY wrote:air resistance:
BMW 0.9
Volvo 0.85

are u sure about what are u doing? I will search infos on M3 and S60R to see if the BMW can have an higher air restistance...

DonaemouS wrote:

DANDY wrote:air resistance:
BMW 0.9
Volvo 0.85

are u sure about what are u doing? I will search infos on M3 and S60R to see if the BMW can have an higher air restistance...

The top speed of the car is published as 245 km/hr, and I tuned it at Bonneville. I have since changed the engine settings, so I'm not certain if it's still valid.
I also got some perspective while building the KTM, their spec sheet spells out the exact numbers, I just plugged it into RL: 1.076 for a tiny car, which happens to generate a lot of downforce. I was actually surprised the BMW top speed testing resulted in a number this low.

BMW M3 E90
Length 4580 mm
Width 1817 mm
Height 1447 mm

Volvo S60R Year 2004
Length 4572 mm
Width 1804 mm
Height 1397 mm

Well, nice eye, DANDY. The M3 is bigger even then Volvo... So with spoilers and other stuffs your AirResistance is good tweaked.

DonaemouS wrote:

DANDY wrote:air resistance:
BMW 0.9
Volvo 0.85

are u sure about what are u doing? I will search infos on M3 and S60R to see if the BMW can have an higher air restistance...

Don't compare to the stock models. Especially the WTCC BMW is really wide in front, hardly comparable to the stock version.

Racer height is quoted at 1350 mm, with M3 body kit.

Bonneville run over vnc...check.
Top speed is a little low now (241), so I can probably drop it a small amount. I couldn't tell if it was wind resisted or not, it was close to redline.

EDIT: resisted. 0 f.a.r. nets me 249 km/h
X2: something else is off. Even at 0.7 and 0.8, it's only hitting 242. I'll take a middle ground @ 0.875 and run engine diagnostics.

DANDY wrote:Racer height is quoted at 1350 mm, with M3 body kit.

Bonneville run over vnc...check.
Top speed is a little low now (241), so I can probably drop it a small amount. I couldn't tell if it was wind resisted or not, it was close to redline.

EDIT: resisted. 0 f.a.r. nets me 249 km/h
X2: something else is off. Even at 0.7 and 0.8, it's only hitting 242. I'll take a middle ground @ 0.875 and run engine diagnostics.

Little track cars like the Atom, KTM, Caterham or Elise generally have quite dreadful drag coefficients. I think the Caterhams is something like cW = 0.7. Of course, the small frontal area compared to a saloon car helps, but they are not very efficient.
All the downforce in the KTM comes at a price, which is high drag.

I rechecked some photos from the M3 and the WTCC racer. The front air dam of the race car is much lower and wider/more squarish, so t could well be that it has a higher front area. But then again, it's a tad lower.

On the 190, when they added all the spoilers for the Evo II, the car actyally got a better cW coefficient. Probably the stock car was so "bad" that they actually improved the flow around the car while generating downforce (or reducing lift).

About the top speed: do you hit the rev limiter with 0 FAR? Maybe a gearing issue?

Tomte wrote:Little track cars like the Atom, KTM, Caterham or Elise generally have quite dreadful drag coefficients.

correct.

Tomte wrote:About the top speed: do you hit the rev limiter with 0 FAR? Maybe a gearing issue?

I'm quite certain, but I'm doing it remotely at about 0.75 fps and no sound. So far it looks like a losing 300 rpm issue. It's not a big deal, but I want my 245, dammit.
Gears are set in stone as far as I can tell - factory 320si homologation specs.

DANDY wrote:
I'm quite certain, but I'm doing it remotely at about 0.75 fps and no sound. So far it looks like a losing 300 rpm issue. It's not a big deal, but I want my 245, dammit.
Gears are set in stone as far as I can tell - factory 320si homologation specs.

I just did the same tests. With an FAR of 0, you get 245 at the rev limit.
With FAR of 0.9, it balances out some 200 or 300 rpm before that, which appears to be maxPowerRev. Maybe in real life they use slightly larger tires? I couldn't find anything about the tire to be used in the S2000 specifications on the FIA website, but I might have overlooked it.

hit 245 with the following:

front air resistance: 0.78 (0.785 hits 244)
max rpm 8600 (double-checked...nobody has 8500 as max)
engineInertia 0.18
engineBaseFriction 35
engineRPMFriction 0.03

Version 081126b is up. Very minor changes, but this one goes to 245.

d minor is the saddest key..... I just watched this movie last week-end.... gonna check out new update now.....

Actually, according to the Doctrine of the affections from the Baroque period, D minor is "The key of pastoral sorrow", as its relative key is F major. For really sad keys, you have for instance B minor "key of passive suffering" and G minor "key of tragic consummation"


Back on topic, I probably may provide a better engine sound for this car, depending on how well I can work with the audio sample that I have. I'll see what I can do about it this weekend.

link down for now, causing dfm to other players with same file...quitting over here...fixing

C14Ru5 wrote:Back on topic, I probably may provide a better engine sound for this car, depending on how well I can work with the audio sample that I have.

Lovely! I was trying to grab from this:

That was exactly the clip I was thinking of.
It took a bit of work, but I also gave you a couple of alternatives, depending on three different points of view and mixed combinations of them:

Code:

;engineSample "320-Engine.wav"
;engineSample "320-Exhaust&EngineMix.wav"
;engineSample "320-Internal.wav"
;engineSample "320-InternalLowPass.wav"
engineSample "320-Internal&EngineMix.wav"
hallSample "320-Internal&EngineMixHall.wav"
;hallSample "320-Internal.wav"

zeroRPMSoundGain 1.0
fullRPMSoundGain 2.0
zeroThrottleSoundGain 0.7
fullThrottleSoundGain 1.0
zeroRPMSoundPitch 0.124
fullRPMSoundPitch 1.0
zeroThrottleSoundPitch 1.025
fullThrottleSoundPitch 1.0

Download the six engine sounds I made (1.7MB)
I originally only intended two of the sounds to be hall sounds, but you are free to be creative with what sounds you choose.

I made some significant changes to the test version, and sent the link to leo. Thanks for all your contributions and patience in MP while I ran hacked versions. Looking forward to winning a few

GET IT HERE

There's hardly any understeer, i don't know if that's right or wrong, but I like it. Just one observation (not a complaint): The X axis inertia seems a bit high, or at least the car has very little pitch rotation during braking and accelleration. If it's actually caused by the suspension and not the body inertia, then there's no need to touch the setting. EDIT: After watching the car tumble for a while, it seems that the X axis inertia isn't too far off anyway, so no need to bother.

Oh, and the hallSample sounds much softer than the engineSample, so you might want to make the hallSample maybe 3-6dB louder in a sound editor. I guess I should have fixed that before I sent you the files.

We are very pleased

long live team bmw!!

seriously D, this is one amazing ride!

"ma too sense" ...

/me sneaks into the bmw team dressing room and reclaims his jersey

the new ride is exceptional, almost orgasmic ... especially the brakes, this is one beast to be loved

okay now gripes:

1. too slow, way underpowered imho
2. where are those "purty" skins?
3. although i love the new engine sound ... wassup with the funky hall effects?

no words...

is just fantastic!

I absolutely love the engine sound too. In 5 laps i was able to get 56:40 on LRP. Now, as Leo, what wrong.

The shadow just don't fit inside the model.
The 3D model, although is well skinned, is still a bit bumpy.
No environment on windows? Its like she hasn't windows.

About performance, just a bit faster. On LRP you are close to beat the S60/Vectra as should be. The handling is what I really like.

1.Slow is what I have to work with. Only published spec for me, which gives me the weakest engine of the bunch. Reminds me of my own ride.
2. Gone...to return with an all-new model for next release.
3. Now entering....the vortex.

4. It's an antisocial beast, afraid of its shadow, and shrinks away from it.
5. Kept the old one for posterity. See #2
6. Doing my bit for 12-player MP performance.

7. LRP isn't a testing ground, it's a battle cage where anything can happen.

DANDY wrote:1.Slow is what I have to work with. Only published spec for me, which gives me the weakest engine of the bunch. Reminds me of my own ride.

7. LRP isn't a testing ground, it's a battle cage where anything can happen.

Ok LRP is not a testing ground:

Black Forest:
BMW 320si E90: 2'30:81
Volvo S60 STCC: 2'31:77

I think she is already enough quick, my 2'30 can easily go down.

Black Forest:
Mercedes 190 TCC v1.2: 2:28'57

Redlog: http://www.box.net/shared/krmlllci5h

Note: took 10 attempts to get below 2:30 so this is to be deemed as lucky lap!

Why cant I find this car?
I ran RLPAU, got the stand alone update. Deleted an old beta or such folder and now
the car is nowhere to be found. It is in the plug-ins folder but is not listed under WTCC or BWM ???

See Flat wrote:Why cant I find this car?
I ran RLPAU, got the stand alone update. Deleted an old beta or such folder and now
the car is nowhere to be found. It is in the plug-ins folder but is not listed under WTCC or BWM ???

BMW...