Weight Bias - Redux

[Silvo 1981]

On reflection I think it's more of a problem if you go low with the SWR. High isn't so much of an issue. Perhaps nothing but just worth bearing in mind if working on a low value SWR.

[Blooze]

Heh, then we'll stay away from the low numbers then...

Interestingly, I am gravitating toward the stock SWR, only changing the TA to the SWR Calc rather than their trumped value - also setting the ARB to Ab = 1 - Sb.  For the Dampers, I am changing the Bump back to Rebound * 50% and using my Damper Agents.

That is pretty close to what we had going at the end of the last campaigne.

$

[Blooze]

Well, I guess we can wrap this one up.

This is what I have settled on...

• I am using the numbers Phil developed for Total ARB and Total Rebound.
• I've set my worksheet up with a flag, True if the inverse of the Wb is to be used for the ARB.  The default is true.
• Rather than debunk the whole idea of the 70% Bump altogether, I made it a variable that is initialized to 50%.  I've experimented a bit and have found that 54% works pretty well.

That is pretty well it.  I think it is working rather well.  Being pretty well aquainted with how the numbers affect the tool, I have been able to make a rather small change to a number of parameters in order to accomplish a result and hit it pretty well on the head first shot.  The tool has proved to be a lot more accurate than the game is prepared to accept so many of the finer adjustments being adjusted.  For instance, if you want to include the dampers in a balance change of .5%, there will be no change.  Then you need to decide whether a change outside of the balance is what you want.

I should be starting to get some of my F and E builds in my Storefront pretty soon.

$

[Blooze]

Bumping this to keep it on the first page...

$

[Blooze]

The reason I mentioned the range of the SWR was that if you were working on a R1/R2 and wanted to go above 66.32% SWR or a nascar below 33.94% SWR then the formula for the AT does start to go a little off track past 69% and 31%. If you go lower than somewhere around 31% the strength of the AT starts to increase rapidly instead of decreasing gradually like it had been. I would imagine for the average car you would be working on the SWR would fall well within that range but if you were working at the extremities of the SWR it's something to bear in mind. I'll show you a graph I did of it tomorrow to show you what I'm banging on about. A picture paints a thousand words and all that.

I hear you loud and clear on the drift setup conspiracy. It makes sense to me at least. I don't know that they've been setup completely for drifting but it must have been in the forefront on their minds when setting up the average stock tune.

I'm going to take some time and see what tinkering about comes up with for me on this but it's useful to have your thoughts on these settings.

I bumped into this the other day trying to set a car's SWR to Values below 34%.  Not so much bumped into it as it finally dawned on me what was going on with the Total ARB values when I set the SWR to low values.  Specifically, I noticed that changing the SWR from 28 to 32 caused the ARB value to get smaller.  So I said, "Huh?", and mulled it around a bit and then remembered this warning Phil had published toward the end of the intial Tonka V. 3.0 build.

A later post of Phils shows the ARB function to produce a sort of sin wave, and that the lower SWR values are in the middle of one of its apexes (apexii?).

I extended the ranges on the columns of the Adjuster worksheet and after looking it all over decided to go back to the original equation that I had cobbled together.  The values were accurate to within a tenth (as close as the game allows us) and behaves as is expected in the lower extremes.

Here is a copy of the Adjuster with the extended ranges and the Diff columns set to only show tenths.

The main difference I see is that the Phil TA function has 4 expressions, and all the others only have 3.  Since the functions come from an internal MS graph mechanism, I have neither the imagination or mathmatical skill to try and fix it.

So, my current solution is to swap out the Phil functions and go back to the ones that I had originally cobbled up.


$