2017 DTAC Upgrade and Tire Files

Events and Fun Runs

2017 DTAC Upgrade and Tire Files

Trae00
Registered User
Trae00
Registered User
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 11:05

13 Feb 2017, 00:03 #1

I have added the Upgrade and Tire files to the 2017 DTAC website.

Make sure you install them on your system or you won't be able to join the server. The Upgrade.ini files will overwrite your existing files, but I have also included the original files renamed "[ORIGINAL]", so you won't lose them. The tire files have "DTAC" names and should not overwrite anything.

As previously discussed ... the goal of these files is to help equalize the cars and tires. The cars will all still have their uniqueness, but hopefully be more competitive with each other. After we've run a few races, I will re-evaluate to determine if tweaks are needed.

Please let me know if you spot any problems or run into any issues. Thanks for racing!
Last edited by Trae00 on 13 Feb 2017, 12:24, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like

Ziggy Moonglow
Registered User
Ziggy Moonglow
Registered User
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 13:56

20 May 2017, 21:29 #2

I just looked at the 'upgrade' files.

Are these being used for all cars? I went into the game and looked at the upgrades and it's check for a non-Delta car.

Did the Firebird/Camaro really gain 20 HP?!
Reply
Like

Trae00
Registered User
Trae00
Registered User
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 11:05

23 Jul 2017, 19:29 #3

Updated DTAC Upgrade and Tire Files now posted!
Reply
Like

Ziggy Moonglow
Registered User
Ziggy Moonglow
Registered User
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 13:56

28 Jul 2017, 20:05 #4

The Firebird looks to have gained 121# and 16 HP, while the Mustang weight stayed the same and lost 40 HP (from 405 to 365).  The Falcon appears to have lost 441# in weight and gained 107 torque and 112 HP (from 281 to 393 HP).

At the track, those changes didn't seem to happen since I was able to turn some ok laps with both the Mustang and Firebird and the Falcon was still slow.

Here are the numbers I'm coming up with, and the comparison with the original files - Let me know where I'm going wrong.
71 Javelin - 348 T, 427 HP, 3109# (+10 T, +12 HP, -110#)
67 Camaro - 284 T, 354 HP, 2932# (-2 T, -2 HP, -243#)
67 Penske - 284 T, 354 HP, 2932# (-5 T, -6 HP, -198#)
68 Camaro - 328 T, 384 HP, 2932# (-2 T, -2 HP, -143#)
68 Penske - 328 T, 384 HP, 2932# (-6 T, -7 HP, -99#)
70 Camaro - 370 T, 422 HP, 3020# (+37 T, +42 HP, -243#)
70 Challenger - 354 T, 458 HP, 2954# (+39 T, +51 HP, -265#)
69 Mustang - 302 T, 365 HP, 3097# (-33 T, -40 HP, +/-0#)
66 Shelby - 325 T, 347 HP, 2690# (+39 T, +42 HP, -298#)
67 Shelby - 290 T, 335 HP, 2690# (-29 T, -33 HP, -243#)
68 Shelby - 315 T, 361 HP, 2690# (-32 T, -36 HP, -243#)
65 Falcon - 375 T, 393 HP, 2315# (+107 T, +112 HP, -441#)
70 Cuda - 358 T, 467 HP, 2910# (+40 T, +52 HP, -309#)
70 Firebird - 338 T, 410 HP, 3384# (+13 T, +16 HP, +121#)
Reply
Like

Trae00
Registered User
Trae00
Registered User
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 11:05

30 Jul 2017, 22:58 #5

As I mentioned in the other thread, I originally started with equal power-to-weight ratios and tweaked to help equalize lap times on several different tracks.  No different for this round of files, though I did add weight adjustments into the mix, which were a bit more effective than the torque/HP adjustments.

The '69 Mustang is the oddball.  As I mentioned before, it doesn't seem to be responding to the Upgrade files like the other cars.  Therefore, this time, I used it as the baseline.  I left the Upgrade file in there, and added a line for weight (though no change), in hopes that I can figure it out soon.

And I keep trying to get the Falcon up to the same performance while still maintaining some drivability.  It's faster than it was, but still slow.  Probably just need to take it out as an option altogether, though I know no one is using it right now.
Reply
Like

Ziggy Moonglow
Registered User
Ziggy Moonglow
Registered User
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 13:56

31 Jul 2017, 19:26 #6

I'll drive the Falcon if those numbers are how it's going to be at the track.

It's got 393 HP, more than any other Ford, it's the lightest of all the cars, weighing 600# lighter than any car with comparable HP and it's got the most torque of ALL the cars.  That's one hell of a 289 right there.  It probably gets really good mileage and since it's so light, won't wear the tires much either.  It appears to have gone from the worst to the best car...

Most torque, lightest car, best aero?  I'm there.

The Cuda and Challenger, have the most HP, gaining over 50 HP AND they both lost over 250# of weight.  Their HP to weight ratios went from .13 to .16 (aka same as the Javelin, 68 Camaros, 67 Mustang and 69 Mustang to better than everything but the Super Falcon's .17 ratio).

The Firebird gained both weight and HP for some reason, taking it's HP to weight ratio from .12 to .12 (no change)...  Even though the real car didn't do so great, it's the best car in the game (less the new super falcon), and for some reason, now has more HP and more weight..  I guess the more weight is to offset the gain in HP or the gain in HP is to offset the gain in weight?  No change in ratio, just more of both.......

The Firebird and 69 Mustang are the only cars that would pass tech inspection, the rest are too light, except the pre-1967 cars since there were no weight limits before 1968.

T/A min weights -
68 - 2800# without fuel or driver (rF weight of 2976#)
69 - 2900# without fuel or driver (rFweight of 3076#)
70 - 3200# with fuel, without driver (rF weight of 3244#)


Aero drag #, min and max  (~125 MPH) -
71 Javelin - 430.19# (constant, no change in drag with increased ride height, all makes except Ford)
67 Camaro - 392.03# 
67 Penske - 385.09# 
68 Camaro - 388.56# 
68 Penske - 385.09# 
70 Camaro - 378.15# 
70 Challenger - 430.19# 
70 'Cuda - 423.25# 
70 Firebird - 378.15# 
69 Mustang - 435.27# min, 446.04# max (increased ride height increases drag, only the Fords)
66 Shelby - 370.07# min, 391.62# max 
67 Shelby - 375.99# min, 397.05# max 
68 Shelby - 376.01# min, 397.43# max 
65 Falcon - 336.54# min, 356.23# max 

When this mod came out and there were issues with it, I asked the guys that made it if they'd be addressed.  I also wanted to see about setting them up to run ovals, aka Grand American cars.  They said 'no'.

The 'upgrades' I'm seeing are taking it more and more into 'fantasy' land, getting further and further away from simulation into arcade mode.

How about we keep some reality in it and work on the things that need working on, like the aero packages, accurate weights and everyone using the same tires?

:-)
Reply
Like