I see no problem to copy-paste while configuring physics parameters. Basically whole work on physics is about either estimating, guesstimating or simply straight-up knowing values when possible. The base values for downforce shows little bit more downforce for newer car, the second two orders aren't this much important to be very picky about. First value is base downforce parameter, second is downforce change per setting in setup, and third is for change in efficiency for changing setting (to simulate stall ?) http://meetme.bplaced.net/rF2_onlineTools/ISI/PhysicsGlossary.htm#Sect1-FrontWing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndyCar_Series#2012–2014 Spoiler: nevermind, got confused about what is what as some pictures show one thing, and some pictures show other thing, no wonder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndyCar_Series#2012%E2%80%932014 And are they really this much different ? I don't know if their sizes are same. But IR18 front wing certainly looks like it should have more downforce due to these flaps (but maybe these flaps were adjustable in dw12 and is on lower setting in the picture?), but who knows how much more, 5-10percent more probably could be correct. The new one would probably also have more drag, but the way sideplates directing the flow around the front wheels, perhaps it could be compensated.
i was pointing more towards drag parameters, they are exactly same, especially suspicious when lift is different. In aero world if u add more lift(downforce) drag will change. also size alone doesn't determine the aero properties, look in the picture. their shpes are completely different for example look at those endplates.so i'm not convinced.
What I want to know, WHO was the test driver who took that flat dinky wing over 230mph for the first time around Indy????
Dallara says: The revolutionary IR12 (sometimes called the DW12 in honor of the champion Dan Wheldon) was updated in 2018 with a radical aerodynamic package, and named IR18. Would they share 5/6 wing aero params if built from scratch? I doubt it. Given the wing range has changed, does the overall car performance match the real IR-18 closely enough for sim purposes? Did the DW-12? No idea
to give rf2 benefit of doubt , the aero distribution between these 2 cars is different. but honestly as u typed, dallara IR18 was a major redesign in terms of aero not to mention we get aeroscreen version of that, so i'm highly sekptical that these 2 different cars should share so many values.....literally copy paste. P.S : iirc think they share rear wing parameters too lol, i forgot to add screen shot of that. will check later and post here if true.
there is more ! rear wing is on oval and indy 500 config share identical values >> and this is most factually wrong one, diffuser sharing same values (in both oval and indy 500 config probably road course too). >> because IR18 has different diffuser design from its predecesor, this is what it says on wikipedia > "The new kits are designed to ensure that more downforce comes from ground effects than the wings" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalla...2 (formally named,use in the IndyCar Series.) now how the heck all 3 elements are identical from car years apart with drastic design changes ? A explanation is must from S397.
My understanding is that the ARBs in an IndyCar are flat bars that are connect to each side of the suspension, front and rear. And those flat bars are available in different thicknesses that allow for changes in stiffness. They are then rotated where the bar goes from horizontal to vertical increasing the stiffness and that rotation can be controlled in the cockpit while driving. So it seems they are simulating the different thicknesses with each group you've noted, but you're right, there is a limited number of selections in the cockpit. (6 front and 6 rear, sounds right) Other cars use a bent rod of different thicknesses and the mounting position can be lengthened or shortened to increase or decrease stiffness. But those options are not available with rF2's physics parameters. Maybe that's something S397 will add someday.
As far as differences between the DW12 and the IR18. I believe the chassis is the same and only some changes to the aero. In particular the cones behind the wheels were removed. The DW12 did have Chevy and Honda aero kits from 2015 to 2017 and had a lot more downforce. I think the commentators mentioned at the Gateway race it went from 4000 lbs to 2000 lbs. The commentators did mention that the aeroscreen raised the CG, which makes sense.
problem is they have exact same values in multiple paramets, not even decimal point difference in majority of them. which makes it looks like s397 just copy pasted dw12 aero data and calling it "new" ir18 and motec proves it further. This is considered as lying. to be perfectly honest i don't want differences just for the sake of it, but i highly doubt 2 completely different cars share aero parameters down to decimal points... yes there are mass and inertia changes to ir18 so thats a plus. maybe they didn't receive ir18 aero data so they had to resort to dw12 values, but i dislike such things, not expected of S397.
Ok fair enough, but you omitted most crucial point, that ir18 is literally copy paste physics of dw12 aero wise ? can you bring any explanation on this please ?
I think that the most crucial point of the Coutie's post is the first sentence "People are on vacation."
Well, one reason they are close, is because they're the same car. IR-18 is the DW-12, without the wheel pods.
Vacation or not, he wouldn't get an answer anyway. There were several "vehicle physic" related questions over the past years. Never got answered. While I "might" understand their reasons behind, it's a bit pity. About that "copy-paste", shurely doesnt increase my trust about realism of simulated cars. But .. well, the dev-team might not get all the related data, might mot be part of contract, limited timefrane, and so on. So they have to "idealise" a bit here and there. But at the end this IR-18 is one of the better cars for shure, not only within rF2. Especially the improved tires (compared to DW-12) play a main role here, even if I think, just like the lately released GT/E update, the car is still a little bit to easy to drive. A lot better than his predecessor though.
I'm gonna need something more concrete than that to prove my data/evidence wrong. These 2 cars in aerodynamic sense don't look similar.
I get a whiff of passive aggressiveness in your comment, judging by you repeating my comment. aren't you curious ? don't you value your money ? I think people here aren't taking it as seriously as they should. I will say bluntly, this copy pasting of physics is nothing short of lying to your customer. There is no way in hell that 2 VISIBLY different cars have 90% identical values.....not even decimal point missing. Unless a dallra engineer is hiding here somewhere maybe he can convince me, otherwise i feel like i just wasted my money on repainted free mod. (and no don't tell me to refund because my limit is over for that).
S397 have always been silent about physics side. i remember i posted 3 physics issues with bmw m4 class 1 ....again with proper evidence using motec.(and one major sound issue, with video evidence). that is over a year ago, zero acknowledgement so far, and as usual 99% of community don't care, if anything reporter like me get negative rep , and it shows in these forums interactions.
They're literally the same car. I don't know what to tell you. They just removed the rear pods and put the aero screen on and then changed the name.
