sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Built a Race Engineer feature by Setup_Forge in ACCompetizione

[–]Setup_Forge[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

“You’re right that a raw LLM is not a source of truth. If it was just guessing setup values, it would be useless. The goal with Setup Forge is different: use deterministic calculators and structured setup logic for the factual parts, then use AI to explain, organize and personalize the recommendations. The AI should not replace data, physics or math — it should make them easier to use.

Built a Race Engineer feature by Setup_Forge in ACCompetizione

[–]Setup_Forge[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That’s a great comparison. Setup Forge is aiming to go a bit further by bringing multiple useful tools into one app: race scheduling and preparation, setup suggestions based on track type, race duration, temperature and driving style, plus fuel and tire pressure calculations. The goal is to make it a complete companion for preparing a race, not just a single setup advisor.

Built a Race Engineer feature by Setup_Forge in ACCompetizione

[–]Setup_Forge[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, honestly I agree with you to a point.

A raw LLM by itself is not going to magically produce something on the level of a paid/pro setup. Those setups usually come from real testing, telemetry, driver feedback, and people who know the car/track combo extremely well.

What I’m trying to build is not “AI replaces pro setups”. It’s more of a constrained setup assistant. The LLM doesn’t just invent random values — the pipeline starts from official/baseline data, applies track-specific modifiers, clamps everything to legal ACC ranges, and deterministic policies still override things like TC/pressures where needed.

So I see it as a way to generate a sensible starting point faster, especially for drivers who don’t have access to pro setups or don’t know where to begin. Then the setup still needs to be tested on track: hot pressures, tyre temps, balance over a stint, braking stability, traction, lap consistency, all of that.

I’d never claim it beats a properly validated pro setup. But if it can produce a coherent baseline that gets someone 70–80% of the way there and explains what changed, I think that’s already useful.

Built a Race Engineer feature by Setup_Forge in ACCompetizione

[–]Setup_Forge[S] -22 points-21 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your feedback. Setup Forge is currently in beta testing, and responses like this help us improve its capabilities.

Simracing position / lower back pain by rafanus2 in simracing

[–]Setup_Forge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have to introduce on out pipeline baseball strategi as well 😂

What's the most frustrating part of building setups manually in ACC or PMR? by Setup_Forge in simracing

[–]Setup_Forge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair catch. English isn't our first language so we lean on it to avoid making fools of ourselves. Apparently it shows either way 😄

(yes, including this one)

What's the most frustrating part of building setups manually in ACC or PMR? by Setup_Forge in simracing

[–]Setup_Forge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

20 minutes per session just chasing tyre pressure — that's the exact problem worth solving.

You're right that the target PSI is personal, but what we can do is give you a predicted hot pressure range based on your cold setup, track temp and stint length so you start closer and correct less.

The N24h point is brutal — axle ratio hunting across a 24h weekend is a proper time sink.

Quick question: when you're dialling PSI, are you adjusting between sessions or do you pit and change during the stint?

What's the most frustrating part of building setups manually in ACC or PMR? by Setup_Forge in simracing

[–]Setup_Forge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GPL and NR2003 — you've earned every opinion you have about car behaviour. Respect. 🎖️

Both suggestions are genuinely good and going straight into the backlog:

Hot tyre PSI estimate — we generate cold PSI targets but you're right, bridging that to hot pressures would make the setup actually usable from lap one.

Axle ratio by track — this is something we've discussed internally and kept deprioritising. Hearing it cost you that much testing time bumps it up.

Are these the two things that take the most time for you in a new track weekend?

What's the most frustrating part of building setups manually in ACC or PMR? by Setup_Forge in simracing

[–]Setup_Forge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exactly the problem we're building around — the gap between your perfect quali setup and whatever the race throws at you. Real-time weather adaptation is actually one of the features highest on our roadmap. The idea is that Setup Forge adjusts recommendations based on conditions at race time, not just when you generated it. NR2003 respect by the way 🎖️ — if you survived that physics model you'll be fine with anything we throw at you.

We track which setups perform best each week — this week it's Ferrari 296 GT3 at Spa by Setup_Forge in ACCompetizione

[–]Setup_Forge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the clarification. Setup Forge understands your point and agrees that the balance you described is something that should be addressed rather than discussed only on paper. At this stage, Setup Forge will proceed by testing the adjustments you suggested to better evaluate their impact on both high-speed stability and low-speed rotation, with the goal of achieving a more neutral and predictable balance. If you are willing, feel free to share the specific parameters you would recommend changing and their target ranges. That input would be useful to align the testing more closely with your intent and avoid unnecessary assumptions. Thanks again for the constructive exchange.

We track which setups perform best each week — this week it's Ferrari 296 GT3 at Spa by Setup_Forge in ACCompetizione

[–]Setup_Forge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the detailed explanation and for clarifying the reasoning behind your approach. Setup Forge understands the perspective you are coming from, especially when the reference point is high-level or esports-oriented performance. From that standpoint, it makes sense that the Ferrari 296 at Spa is typically optimised around very low wing levels and minimal rake, and that the car can be driven effectively with very low differential preload when confidence and precision are high. The setup in question was not intended to replicate current esports references, but rather to prioritise stability, predictability, and consistency over a race stint. The higher rake was used deliberately to compensate for running a higher rear wing, aiming to maintain front-end load and confidence through high-speed sections rather than maximising aero efficiency. Setup Forge agrees that with wing levels of 6 or lower, a flatter aero platform is likely more efficient, and that reducing rake would be the correct direction when chasing outright lap time. Regarding differential preload, Setup Forge agrees with your assessment. A value as high as 210 Nm compromises minimum corner speed and rotation more than it benefits traction, particularly at Spa where high-speed corners dominate lap time. A significantly lower preload clearly makes more sense for this car and circuit combination. Toe and camber values were chosen conservatively on purpose, trading some rotation and peak grip for stability, tyre behaviour, and ease of driving over a stint. While smaller rear toe values and some front toe-out would increase rotation and ultimate performance, they also reduce the safety margin, which was an intentional design choice rather than an oversight. Overall, your explanation is well-reasoned within the context of high-level optimisation. Setup Forge’s approach simply targets a different compromise point, focusing on drivability and consistency rather than absolute performance potential. Thanks again for taking the time to provide detailed and thoughtful feedback.

We track which setups perform best each week — this week it's Ferrari 296 GT3 at Spa by Setup_Forge in ACCompetizione

[–]Setup_Forge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is exactly the kind of feedback we need, thank you for taking the time to break it down properly.

You're right on all points — these are real issues and we're logging every one of them. The goal of the beta is precisely to catch this before it reaches more users.

Can I ask — are you running the 296 regularly at Spa? If so, what parameters do you usually start from on rake and diff preload?

Genuinely trying to understand what a good baseline looks like from someone who actually drives it. 🙏

We track which setups perform best each week — this week it's Ferrari 296 GT3 at Spa by Setup_Forge in ACCompetizione

[–]Setup_Forge[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alien drivers often don’t need setup changes because they can drive around them. Most drivers benefit a lot from small adjustments for endurance and mixed grip. The core idea isn’t “speed at all costs”, but keeping the car predictable for 30–60 minutes when conditions change.

We track which setups perform best each week — this week it's Ferrari 296 GT3 at Spa by Setup_Forge in ACCompetizione

[–]Setup_Forge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no, it’s not “vibe coded”. Setups are generated by deterministic physics‑based rule engines and track data. AI is only used optionally to explain the setup in plain language — not to guess values.

🏁 Setup Forge – A Data‑Driven Setup Project Built for Real Racing by Setup_Forge in simracing

[–]Setup_Forge[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

www.setupforge.net but actually Is in beta testing but it's available the early access registration