@NeubaumTurk_HK , other than why d@mping isn’t allowed “damping?”. Why is “@” even allowed?
I tested the “bad” word to see. Why can I use it and you can’t? 
I don’t think I know you so how can I say you can’t tune? You probably love your tunes just as much as I love mine. 
and I stand by what I originally posted.
I did a quick test of this myself with a C8 Corvette Stingray around Laguna Seca Short. I equipped race suspension only, zeroed out the anti-squat/dive, and changed the damping settings accordingly.
With both front and rear set to 6.5 bump 1.0 rebound, the car had a “hoppy” ride. Every now and then I could hear the RPMs rising very briefly when the rear wheels bounced themselves off of the ground after striking some prominent curbs and sometimes after going over crests. Being that the wheels didn’t have as much damping moving away from the vehicle, this is the behavior I’d expect.
With the settings reversed (1.0 bump, 6.5 rebound), I would describe the ride as “pitchy”, like the car is riding on waves like a boat. The driving wheels didn’t want to leave the ground like it did with the previous settings, and upon striking the prominent curbs it would bounce quite a bit on landing (Though in a different manner compared to the previous settings).
It’s hard to describe the differences really well, but there are definitely distinct and unique differences in the two setups. After testing with the settings at 13.0 instead of 6.5, the latter of the two is probably better for demonstration purposes. With the damping cranked to the max, the strength of the damping washes out the bouncing behavior too much
I don’t do this anymore. Probably why I’m not experiencing the same thing. I don’t think these anti-geometry settings are just easy buttons. There’s more to them than that.
I just honestly wouldn’t even do that anymore >> Anti Dive Geometry – Suspensionsguy
Eh, I’m familiar with what it is and I still zero them out. I only dial it back in after I’ve adjusted springs, dampers, ARBs, etc. Most of the time I don’t find it necessary tbh.
It’s kinda beside the point here anyways; it should have exactly zero effect on how the vehicle reacts when not using the throttle or the brakes. Anti-squat/dive will not hide a dampening issue
1 Like
There’s no way to tell how the developers have factored the “anti’s” into the algorithms. I’ve tried various anti settings watching the shock telemetry under acceleration and braking and I don’t see anything significant showing up in the telemetry. So I question the validation of these settings in an tune anyway. Are they really doing any good?
2 Likes
I don’t notice anything in the telemetry but for my own sanity I zero them out now. I used to leave them default but not anymore. One thing I know for certain, positive anti-dive will make the car understeer and positive anti-squat makes you oversteer. It’s very subtle but when you zero them out and adjust on the positive side it’s more noticeable.
1 Like
It’ll be difficult to tell the difference between different damping or anti-squat/dive settings just by looking at telemetry. There’s so much going on so quickly that it’s hard to get a good picture of what’s going on. It would be like hooking up a multimeter to a computer wire and trying to decode a computer signal by reading the change in voltage ten thousand times a second… Ain’t gonna happen.
For dampers especially, I usually do it by “feel”. If I’m bent on making the car as fast as possible I’ll throw in a bunch of hotlapping and writing down lap times. I feel like I would go crazy trying to decipher what the telemetry is trying to tell me for dampers lol
EDIT: Oh and for the “anti-” suspension geometry, there is a place for it in suspension setup, but as far as I know its mostly for niche applications. I think the maximum I’d go for either anti-squat or anti-dive is 20%, though 90% of the time I leave it at zero. While “Anti-” geometry can resolve diving/squatting issues, it comes with it’s own issues that I don’t want to work around.
First rule of a good scientific test is it’s repeatability. I was able to repeat this test and concur with your findings.
Second rule of a good scientific test is what happens when the second tester puts their twist on the test.
Mt twist was to run the same test but with the spring rates reduced by 1/2.
Short answer (I’m not big on long answers) the car in all tests became much more highly controllable in all aspects. Much more than the 1/2 change of the spring rate.
However, I do agree the bump-rebound is not reversed.
And with the rebound at 6.5 and spring rate at 1/2 I felt the car was at it’s best. So from this starting point I started increasing the bump until it was at 3.8 where I felt l was getting the best handling with all else settings at default.
Car still needs further testing but this may be a good future tune.
3 Likes
I seem to do well with a little negative anti-dive and a little positive anti-squat. I donno, works for me.
I find that setting the rebound too much higher than bump gets worse results. It’s like they can’t be too far from each other. Especially after zeroing out the anti-geometry. Like if I use T10’s 2 - 3 whole numbers higher than bump method, the car gets usettled. If I keep these within 2 whole numbers of each other, it feels more composed.
Like this M4. I currently have them set at:
Bump
7/6.8
Rebound
7.3/7.1
Which is a whole lot less than 2 whole numbers lol.
Springs
515/1085 ( to match Ohlins R&T )
The car feels quite composed on Nordscheife. Any more rebound or less bump and it just bounces all over the place or just loses the rear end.
Damping is fine…D@mpened is not.
Present tense vs past tense.
That’s weird
1 Like
When I absolutely need to adjust them, that is the same approach that has worked for me also.
1 Like
Well, we need dampers to dampen the dam car’s undampened dampening d@mpened jumping. If that doesn’t make your short damp I don’t know what will. Now we’ll see what needs the @.
The only one. How silly is that?
1 Like
So. Drilled myself really hard on how to do this suspension tuning proper. These defaults are so far off it’s not even funny. T10 really needs to learn from a suspension specialist. Seems they’re all set to show off the anti-geometry stuff. Typical tech demo stuff.
1 Like
Usually the thing I see that’s often pretty far off is ARBs, or more specifically how they’re often well into “understeer” territory (stiff front, soft rear). I guess it’s a safer bet for newer players, but for my driving style I like to dial it much closer to neutral steer (or just a touch of oversteer)
On most cars I’m usually happy with how a car feels when the front is usually 5 or 10 units softer than the rear. It varies of course (as well as how much total ARB stiffness I run both front and rear) but I find most cars benefit greatly from just properly adjusted ARBs alone
The standard damping settings on most cars could easily be improved on as well. If the dampers are tuned just right it can make a night and day difference in how it behaves. It might not cut off more than a second from a lap time, but properly tuned dampers can make a car so much more enjoyable to drive
I just noticed another thing,
Be very careful about using IRL spring rates in Forza
I did some reading regarding a set of Ohlins coilovers for an E92 M3 and was curious why the spring rates were the way they were (~685 lb/in front, ~1,027 lb/in rear). Turns out reading through some Bimmerpost-forums the motion ratio of the suspension on that particular car is 1:3. I’ll spare the details on motion ratio since other people on the internet can explain it better than me, but basically the E92 M3 needs to have much stiffer rear springs to have a similar wheel rate front to rear
In Forza however, I highly doubt Forza goes as far as to make the motion ratios of each car accurate to IRL. IMO there’s so many oddities and unknowns with Forza’s suspension simulation that it’s likely fruitless to compare to IRL. I just assume that the motion ratio for every car is equal front and back; for a car with a 50/50 weight distribution I’ll probably run equal spring rates front and rear
Sure. I’ve been getting these setups to work pretty well tho. Especially after I set the alignment so that the outer edge of the tire isn’t 10 degrees hotter under load. Turns out that, generally speaking, their rebound settings are a bit too soft. Mine end up closer to the 7 - 9 mark. Bump generally feels pretty good from 3 - 5 when they have it set a bit too high. I’m walking back what I said about the labels being reversed, but I was getting really frustrated with trying to tune all the understeer out. I’ve also gone back to zeroing out the anti-geometry.
My findings are that their tire pressures aren’t too far off, but the dampers and alignments are. Spring rates are probably fine, but I like to try to use IRL stuff to see how close they have their handling model to allowing me to do so. Anti-geometry is an interesting addition, but it’s being abused more often than not. Feels rather tech demo-y to me. Like 'here, we’ll set the dampers ‘n such really soft or really odd so you can see how this stuff works’ type stuff. And you’re right about ARBs. Those are definitely leaning toward understeer. Arbs are pretty easy to set once the alignment is dialed tho.
I’ll get around to sharing my setups at some point. Just wanna dial them in more first.
My shocks bump is I keep low and my rebound is likely never higher than 5-7.0. Seems like a smooth transition over rumble strips wo upsetting cars driving line…? Maybe there’s better out there but that’s what seems to work for me. If anyone found something better I’m all ears. 
One thing gets me suspension geo… low setting and shocks seem to be higher on how far they compress. Middle setting suspension geo not as high on shocks telemetry and high geo shock levels telemetry are relatively low in front. Hard to decipher which feels grippier.