3/10/2024 0 Comments Motorsport manager excellent setupThat's my current opinion as well, most of the effects of stats, boosts, etc are small and individually have minimal influence on the base value. There's probably other more significant variables that caused larger delays resulting in the loss. I'm very doubtful that a 0.06s delta caused by a mediocre setup is the primary reason for a win/loss. In quali, I've seen +0.064 be the difference between pole and second so in a way it does matter, but on the grand scheme of the whole race weekend that's still very small. Naturally the ocd/perfectionist in me gravitates towards that but then that's on me/player. Seems feasible IMO (I'm still favoring 0.008s/% per lap), but it's still nothing to get super hung up over getting every last percent. Adaptability seems like it has more to do with adjusting to changing conditions such as weather but I could be wrong.Ī whole second from 0-100% would mean 0.01s per % per lap. As far as I know, there's no model or stat that simulates the driver getting used to a particular setup. So whatever you switch to is what you get. At 99%, it might be a -0.03s or something like that (these are just made up numbers to illustrate my point). So if we're comparing to an ideal 100% (+0.0s), at 50% setup the car's performance is nerfed and overall pace might be -0.1s per lap. My best guess is that the game simply correlates X% with Y modifier. So unless the devs come out and say here's what improving/changing setup does, a simplistic model seems far more likely. It might have deep interactions with other game mechanics but currently there's little evidence for that. My general impression is that 0.008-0.012s per % improvement is the most optimistic cap one can assume, any larger and it would've been more obvious what the bonus/penalty is similar to switching to the wrong type of don't believe the setup minigame is meant to be this complex or deep. However, if the change in setup (eg a 10% to a 90%) caused a >1s change, the evidence would've been obvious from the get go. Again, this was only 1 set of data and many more test laps would be needed to confirm an exact value. The one test I've seen which was done in a way to minimize other effects interfering produced a 0.278s difference between an 80% setup improvement (15% vs 99%). The best explanation I can think of is because the individual pace change caused by setup is small and other changes happening simultaneously have an even larger impact which often drowns out any advancement due to setup improvement. Instead, you sometimes see progressively slower lap times even though setup is getting better. If it was, it would be clear as day during most practice sessions where setup changes and large jumps in % are frequent. I can't be too cavalier about denying other possibilities since I have not done explicit testing myself but the fact remains there's hardly any evidence that a 99% setup is magnitudes better than say an 85% one. Results like these supports the idea that the effect of setup is small and get washed over by rng or other changing factors that also affect pace. If they do, it seems random so it's hard to say if there's a strong correlation between the improved setup and a faster time. During practice, as you narrow down on a better setup, your lap times hardly change. I have yet to see any definitive proof that setup percentage awards a significant boost to pace. I don't know for sure, but drivers have the skill "adaptability" with its tooltip stating the driver's ability to adapt to changed setups (or something alike). It has a severe influence.Īnd maybe there are other side effects. Local mesh refinement controls can resolve geometry details appropriately, and poor CAD models can be improved in SpaceClaim/Discovery, or you can use Fluent's Fault Tolerant meshing workflow, which is robust to CAD faults.Originally posted by MasterJB:Hardly does anything? You can try out a lap with 20% and one with 95%+ and compare the lap times. Poor mesh quality can also be caused by insufficient mesh resolution of geometry details or by poor underlying CAD. When selected, you will then enter the percentage of the total cells to be improved, and the number of iterations of smoothing sweeps performed. If you are in Fluent Solution mode, you can improve the mesh quality by selecting the improve the mesh option on the Quality button under the Domain tab. To improve the surface mesh, you will have to enter a face quality limit to target, and when improving the volume mesh, you will have to enter a cell quality limit value to target. If you are still in the process of generating your mesh in Fluent Meshing mode, you can insert a task after both the 'Generate the Surface Mesh' task and 'Generate the Volume Mesh' task by right-clicking on either one and inserting a new 'Improve Mesh' task. Mesh quality can be improved in a variety of places in Ansys Fluent.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |