In the first page of this thread, hutch said they changed the top speed of the p1 gtr because real world tests show it can reach 217 mph rather than 202 mph. So according to real world tests, the 720s can do 0-60 in 2.7 or less stock. And mclaren itself has underrated the 720s. They said the 720s does 1/4 mile in 10.3 s. While "real world tests" show it can go under 10 in at least 3/5 races.
@Hutch_Tim Are car corrections still being worked on in the background? This thread has not been updated in 3 weeks and I know initially you were planning to have weekly updates.
Also, did you see this thread about the ride height change to Medium for the Porsche 959?
@joel24 Well if you've looked *everywhere* on the internet, you would know that there's basically no sources that says the P1™ GTR's top speed being 202mph. Every sources says 217mph. Hutch's just correcting their stats to the correct one.
@Hutch_Tim Are car corrections still being worked on in the background? This thread has not been updated in 3 weeks and I know initially you were planning to have weekly updates.
Also, did you see this thread about the ride height change to Medium for the Porsche 959?
Good question - I've been on holiday for a couple of weeks but will be getting back to this, the aim being to incorporate a bunch of fixes for PL8.
I'll add this to the first post, but to also note it here: because there are really quite a lot of corrections to consider, we're going to apply a prioritisation process, scored on two criteria: size of correction, and impact-on-game. So that means very big corrections (e.g. change in 0-60 time of more than 20%) on very important cars (prize cars, highly-used high-rarity cars) will be checked first. Smaller corrections on important cars and larger corrections on less important cars will be considered next. Very small corrections on very unimportant (rarely used, lower rarity) are at the back of the queue.
@joel24 Well if you've looked *everywhere* on the internet, you would know that there's basically no sources that says the P1™ GTR's top speed being 202mph. Every sources says 217mph. Hutch's just correcting their stats to the correct one.
If hutch used factory claims the Bugatti SS top speed would be lower(around 257), but due to real life testing it got a bump. (Official Bugatti website) https://www.bugatti.com/veyron/veyron-164-super-sport/ I think hutch uses the factory times unless real life times are significantly better then claimed times. The 720s is a monster irl and deserves a boost. Now if you could stop contradicting everything we say and let the 720s get the boost it deserves, that would be great.
@joel24 Well if you've looked *everywhere* on the internet, you would know that there's basically no sources that says the P1™ GTR's top speed being 202mph. Every sources says 217mph. Hutch's just correcting their stats to the correct one.
If hutch used factory claims the Bugatti SS top speed would be lower(around 257), but due to real life testing it got a bump. (Official Bugatti website) https://www.bugatti.com/veyron/veyron-164-super-sport/ I think hutch uses the factory times unless real life times are significantly better then claimed times. The 720s is a monster irl and deserves a boost. Now if you could stop contradicting everything we say and let the 720s get the boost it deserves, that would be great.
Lol I agree with you but it's hilarious how much you are pushing the change of the 720s because you have one. I'd so the same thing so can't fault you 😂
@joel24 Well if you've looked *everywhere* on the internet, you would know that there's basically no sources that says the P1™ GTR's top speed being 202mph. Every sources says 217mph. Hutch's just correcting their stats to the correct one.
If hutch used factory claims the Bugatti SS top speed would be lower(around 257), but due to real life testing it got a bump. (Official Bugatti website) https://www.bugatti.com/veyron/veyron-164-super-sport/ I think hutch uses the factory times unless real life times are significantly better then claimed times. The 720s is a monster irl and deserves a boost. Now if you could stop contradicting everything we say and let the 720s get the boost it deserves, that would be great.
And to top it all off look at what i found on the first page of this thread Glad i caught this before you futher embarrassed yourself. Well i think we're done here. *drops mic*
Thanks for sourcing these, I was just about to see if evo ran some tests on the 720s. I still have the same feelings as i did before. Just check out this guys channel and see this monster put against other cars https://www.youtube.com/user/DragTimes Also in one of my earlier comments i linked a cite that had tracks times of the 720s vs. other cars (some of which are ingame). The 720s beats a lot of cars including the Porsche 918. This car still deserves a boost imo. I think this is enough talk about the 720s, lets let hutch do their job and research the car themselves. It's time we let them make a decision instead of us just sitting here and arguing.
While I'm just here, and sighing, because my beloved Japanese cars won't even get those 0-60 boost or the MRA boost that it probably deserves. Those RX-7's, Skylines, these cars don't even have factory claims stats to go with. And same could be said for these cars' acceleration times. There's just absolutely no datas so these cars would probably just end up being the same way as they are now a few years later, with the same unrealistic bad MRA but just no way to prove them wrong.
While I'm just here, and sighing, because my beloved Japanese cars won't even get those 0-60 boost or the MRA boost that it probably deserves. Those RX-7's, Skylines, these cars don't even have factory claims stats to go with. And same could be said for these cars' acceleration times. There's just absolutely no datas so these cars would probably just end up being the same way as they are now a few years later, with the same unrealistic bad MRA but just no way to prove them wrong.
Oh well.
boost the 0-60, nerf the handling, simple like that
So people lost links of various sources, which sources are considered as credible? Only web sources? Or written paper magazines? If web sources, which ones? Only EVO? I see a lot of youtube videos being posted by some not official car magazines. Is this considered credible?
keeping in mind that Evo is their official partner - it might be a bad move by Hutch to chose another source as a credit.
Yes but Evo CAN'T have all the information. No way Evo has tested some of these cars, and it's also unlikely that Evo even has data on a lot of these more obscure cars, especially those that didn't have a UK market release.
Evo is firstly a performance car magazine so they wouldn't focus much on the lesser family cars much.
Also, I've spotted at least one car image taken from a rival UK magazine. So I kind of think it's an "anything goes but Evo is there for credibility" thing.
Not many cars will still have medium ground clearance after the next update... I am not sure if that’s a good thing or not.
EDIT: Maybe it’s good to re-evaluate the value at which a car is labellef with ‘medium’. Maybe the currect value is fine, but maybe it could be changed slightly.
Not many cars will still have medium ground clearance after the next update... I am not sure if that’s a good thing or not.
EDIT: Maybe it’s good to re-evaluate the value at which a car is labellef with ‘medium’. Maybe the currect value is fine, but maybe it could be changed slightly.
More cars need to be bumped up to medium ground clearance than dropped down to low. It’s just more higher end cars should be (rightfully) classified as low.
Comments
thats half the amount of the time that my merc takes to 100kmh lol
Reference: https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2017/2561720/mclaren_720s_coupe.html
Also, did you see this thread about the ride height change to Medium for the Porsche 959?
http://forums.hutchgames.com/discussion/6213/porsche-959-should-be-medium#latest
http://www.cr-x.org/crxorg/crxspecs/
I'll add this to the first post, but to also note it here: because there are really quite a lot of corrections to consider, we're going to apply a prioritisation process, scored on two criteria: size of correction, and impact-on-game. So that means very big corrections (e.g. change in 0-60 time of more than 20%) on very important cars (prize cars, highly-used high-rarity cars) will be checked first. Smaller corrections on important cars and larger corrections on less important cars will be considered next. Very small corrections on very unimportant (rarely used, lower rarity) are at the back of the queue.
I think hutch uses the factory times unless real life times are significantly better then claimed times. The 720s is a monster irl and deserves a boost. Now if you could stop contradicting everything we say and let the 720s get the boost it deserves, that would be great.
Glad i caught this before you futher embarrassed yourself. Well i think we're done here. *drops mic*
https://www.evo.co.uk/mclaren/720s
https://www.evomagazine.com.au/mclaren-720s-review-the-new-supercar-benchmark/
*kicks mic off stage*
https://www.youtube.com/user/DragTimes
Also in one of my earlier comments i linked a cite that had tracks times of the 720s vs. other cars (some of which are ingame). The 720s beats a lot of cars including the Porsche 918. This car still deserves a boost imo. I think this is enough talk about the 720s, lets let hutch do their job and research the car themselves. It's time we let them make a decision instead of us just sitting here and arguing.
Only web sources? Or written paper magazines?
If web sources, which ones?
Only EVO?
I see a lot of youtube videos being posted by some not official car magazines.
Is this considered credible?
Evo is firstly a performance car magazine so they wouldn't focus much on the lesser family cars much.
Also, I've spotted at least one car image taken from a rival UK magazine. So I kind of think it's an "anything goes but Evo is there for credibility" thing.
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2016/2171660/honda_civic_type_r.html click on full specifications
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=426063
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/mercedes-benz-a45-amg-2015.html#aeng_mercedes-benz-a45-amg-2015-20-4matic-7at-380-hp
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/mercedes-benz-c-63-amg-t-modell-s205-2014.html#aeng_mercedes-benz-c-63-amg-t-modell-s205-2014-40-v8-7at-476-hp
RQ25 Mercedes-AMG CLK DTM: Ground clearance is 118mm, should be low instead of medium.
https://www.autoevolution.com/cars/mercedes-benz-clk-dtm-amg-cabrio-a209-2006.html#aeng_mercedes-benz-clk-dtm-amg-cabrio-2006-54-v8-kompressor
EDIT: Maybe it’s good to re-evaluate the value at which a car is labellef with ‘medium’. Maybe the currect value is fine, but maybe it could be changed slightly.