LiDAR circuit models

I wonder how a fantasy car could bare accuracy once you don't have the real thing for comparison. A accurated fantasy car is a contradiction by itself.

 

Can't agree with that. Fine if you call it a fantasy track. But a bump or change of camber can define how a real track is driven. You see drivers getting into trouble in RL in the same places as in iRacing because of what people are calling unimportant details. If the surface compels you to tip-toe around an apex just when you'd like to get the power down for the following straight, then it's a different track if that's not there. These non-regularities tend to sort out the fast from the rest - who have to be more concerned about risk management at such points.

I do realise I'm pissing in the wind here btw

Anyway most conventional tracks are so far out relative to the LS version that these arguments about precise bumps and changes over time in relation to realism are redundant.

A sim racer might do more laps of a given track in one week than a top pro in RL in a career. Fast Sim racers drive absolutely on the limit. So after hundreds of laps of a LS track you'll still be learning, trying different things, and getting caught out - whoever you are. F1 drivers with no testing allowed now are spending a lot of time in the simulators between races.

I wouldn't claim LS is worth it, because it's insanely expensive. Just that it does make a big difference to the way you drive. Maybe rF2's new road thing will add something to the mix.

Fantasy cars could still be expected to behave according to real, Earth physics were they to be built. But yes, the problem is knowing.

 

lmfao :d

 

I think it’s fair to compare to iRacing because that’s our only real source of comparison but you are right this isn't a rFactor vs iRacing thread though sadly the same few individuals become aggressive an abusive when its mentioned. My view is that not having laser scanned tracks is not a deal breaker for me; rFactor 2 will still be a day one purchase. As for cost, it depends on the budget of the developer. If ISI had to make a choice between making rFactor 2 multiplayer (let’s just pretend it didn't have it) and having laser scanned tracks then I'd say yes let’s do without laser scanned tracks and have multiplayer code. iRacing did it because they had the budget to do so and felt it would add to the overall appeal of the sim and have marketed it as such. It’s also about staying current. Now that iRacing has used laser scanning other sim developers will be asked the same questions as ISI by their fans even though ISI have created many great tracks over the years using older GPS/photo/video data technology. Sometimes it doesn't matter about those great tracks, some customers will only see that they are not using laser scanning technique's and that gets perceived as the sim not being cutting edge or current as bad as that may sound there will be potential customers that see it that way. I run a support site for a well-known and respected flight sim peripheral manufacturer with an excellent track record for quality and customer support. Over the years they have asked for feedback from members of my site to include in future hardware and software projects. In recent years the joystick industry has moved to HALL sensors and force sensing controls (not to be confused with force feedback). The company I deal with has always used high quality potentiometers and its quite common to find users with 8+ year old joysticks and throttle units still functioning like they did the day they were taken out of the box. Unfortunately though if they released a product tomorrow and decided to go with their tried and trusted potentiometers they will get a lot of criticism because they didn't use HALL sensors.. There is nothing wrong with the older technology they use or the quality of the potentiometers but because other manufacturers have used cheap pots in the past and suffered quality issues people want to see new technology used as many racers will want to see more laser scanning technology used in sims.

There is some value to be had from that but maybe it could also prove to be a negative for one of rFactors biggest selling points. If ISI released rFactor 2 with all laser scanned tracks could it deter mod makers who would perhaps think they won't be able to attain the same levels of accuracy and therefore shrink the mod making scene which has been one of rFactors greatest strengths? Perhaps ISI just doesn't have the budget for it? iRacing has a very rich backer, maybe if I had that money or knew a John Henry or Roman Abramovich I'd go and laser scan as many British racing circuits as possible and create a 'British Heritage' mod so that we'd have a kind of time capsule or tracks scanned to gather the best data possible with the current technology. Do it before we lose so many of these great tracks due to the ecomentalists and town planners who have refused planning permission for improvements/expansion to existing tracks or even closed some because of residential concerns even though these tracks were around long before the houses around them. Include all the great tracks large and small, Silverstone, Donnington, Brands Hatch, Thruxton, Oulon Park, Mallory Park to name just a few.

My main concern is that one of rFactors greatest strengths may be its biggest weakness - at least from my point of view. I've already mentioned the glut of poor conversions of tracks from GP4 for example and sometimes even older sims. Those tracks were already based upon older data much more prone to error than laser scanning. On top of that the data has already passed by one 'human filter' the original creator who may well have made a number of conscious changes to the virtual track because of limitations in the hardware technology of the day or their game engine. That then gets converted by an amateur mod maker who then takes that 'filtered' data and then makes his own changes based on who knows what and releases it. In my opinion the worst thing that happened to rFactor was the release of the track conversion tools. We had great tracks like Trois-Rivieres released which set a high benchmark and then it was like an arms race to convert all the high profile tracks from games like GP4 and be the first to do it and to hell with the quality. Those converted tracks from GP4 were already a generation or more old when they were first converted and I think there is every chance that those tracks will just get a quick and dirty port over to rFactor 2 just to be the first person to do it and 'lay claim' to being the guy who virtually owns the right to recreate that track. Instead of taking a step forward it feels like many of these poor conversions from older sims are holding things back and also worse still lowering our expectations.

I'm sure there will be a few posters who won't read past my first mention of iRacing and go on the attack, for those that took the time to read my post thanks, it’s just my opinion, just as valid as yours and I've taken the time to read everyone's points of view here. I'm sure we're all looking forward to rFactor 2, laser scanned tracks or not. We're all just sim racers playing with some '1's and '0's cleverly arranged to entertain us

 

love your passive aggressive post there Revvin. You have a very subtle fanboyism about you. LOL.

 

LS tracks aren't in iRacing because they have a big budget, rich backer, or because they are more "cutting edge" and focused on realism than ISI or other developers. They have LS tracks because they knew they could charge $12-$15 dollars per track, and there would be enough suckers who would pay that money and they would get back the full cost of the laser scanning, plus some extra. It's a gimmick to make money. They charge for each car because those same people believe that the cars are super realistic, even though the handling of these cars has changed 10 different times with each update.

Old Hat, if a sim racer is still getting caught out by a section of a track after hundreds of laps, then he sucks. Probably because he has a low IQ. LS has nothing to do with his repeated failure. He'd have the same dumb approach with a traditionally built track. F1 drivers have been learning new tracks since 1950. Yes, they do often use simulators now, but they don't use iRacing's LS tracks. Some of them use an ISI simulator. F1 drivers have managed just fine without simulators for almost 60 seasons, and even now they learn 99.9% of everything they need to know by getting out on the real track with a real car. As I said in my previous post, they memorize the details of the track very, very quickly. Of course it's easy. It's as easy as memorizing a kart track, the way to our girlfriend's house, or a route to the local store.

 

Well, then everyone, including the best sim racers in the world who've dominated other sims, fall into your "dumb" category. You don't learn a LS track by remembering there's a bump here or a dip there. You have to drive it and feel the limit. Such is the fine line with these irregularities, in pursuit of tenths people come unstuck. I'm not mentioning names, as it's poor form - despite seeing a perfect example last couple of days. But we've all seen it, and done it.

Anyway, my feet are getting wet...

 

Hardly like the old days, David but I agree with you. I have never bought into the training aspect of home computer sim racing other than perhaps the mental aspects of dealing with pressure and maintaining concentration - you don't need laser scanned tracks to achieve that.

What they do, however, is to tick a box of realism. If you can have a feature that is closer to the real thing then why not? Of course if that feature is at a cost of other things then the value question comes to the fore. Right now with sim racing technology the track geometry is probably the thing that developers can be the most accurate with. Whether it is that important is another matter, it is a step towards greater realism. The fact that neither the cars nor the track surface are modelled anywhere near 100% accuracy in any home racing sim arguably render the track geometry accuracy as superfluous but none the less at least one aspect can be ticked off as pretty damn close.

As an aspiration towards accuracy I can see the appeal for iRacing management, whether the cost stacks up to the benefit I couldn't say.

Personally I don't care if a corner is 10mph faster than real life because we don't have cars accurate to that level. Even if it did would it really matter to me? Not really when all I really want is to feel like I am racing on the track I might have seen on board on TV. I do think the iR production process works well at producing consistent high quality tracks. Whether that is worth the cost is a personal choice. I certainly don't think it is a prerequisite to creating good tracks but does at least guarantee a decent level.

 

Old Hat, you are describing the **same thing** sim racers have been doing with other sims for years. I've driven some of these LS tracks. The approach is the same as it always has been, inlcuding when I was a top 20 driver early on during the iRacing beta a few years ago. The only people who believe differently are those wo are desperately trying to justify the hundreds of dollars (or more) they've already invested in iRacing, which is clearly not what they've proclaimed it to be over the past three years.

I'm glad ISI are spending their time and money on areas of a sim that will truly make the sim racing experience more realistic. Maybe some of these guys who sit down for a practice session and run 200 hundreds laps in iRacing trying to gain .1 on a track that is frozen in time (unrealistic) won't enjoy the constantly changing track conditions and weather/time of day (realistic) in rF2. I hope they do, but their investment (both $$ and time spent cheering) in iRacing might make it impossible.

 

feels3 and a few others seem to think none of us have ever tried a LS track.

 

Well then, someone could say you are trying to find the positives in LS tracks because iRacing has that kind of track....and you've already paid $$$ for them. You're not objective because of this. Am I right?

 

You got me then.

 

LS track does not equal quality. Case and point right here!!

2 Years after the first complaints of this there is still no fix. Just showing the facts. It still comes down to the track builder himself.

I love it when the engine blows.

 

Read the post. Also let me know when you find that 100% accurate fantasy track. I'll be downloading it ASAP

 

I haven't seen anyone point out a weakness in LS track. In fact I think we all agree that LS tracks would be great, we just don't think it is mandatory and would rather the budget be spent on the physics engine. LS isn't cheap. BTW, I have had an iRacing sub from day one and own just about all the content with the exception of NASCAR content. I would spend more time there if I wasn't so involved with league racing. Right now my focus is on an endurance racing league where we do 6 - 12hour races every other month with 40 car fields in three classes (LMP1, LMP2 and GT). I have two other team mates whom I practice and do join setup development and work together on strategy. Can't do that with iRacing. Not knocking iRacing at all.. Just saying it isn't my cup of tea (in it's current state anyways).

 

I don't know which people are calling such noticeable track 'features' unimportant, but a manually made track can easily incorporate those same features to have the same effect on cars and drivers. You don't need LS to make the track behave the same on your computer as you see in real life, because what you can see affecting cars in real life are not minor details - they're big ones. What LS will give you is the smaller details that you can't see in reference material, and therefore can't fairly accurately replicate on your own created track. And that's great if it happens, I surely hope no one is saying a LS track would not provide more accuracy than a non-LS track (in both cases the build quality obviously matters, but like-for-like LS will give more accurate results).

The point I'm making is that if a manually made track reproduces the same behaviours you can see in videos etc, it's very very difficult to separate it from LS because the very same references you use to check it (photos, videos, etc) are the same as those used to make it. If I measure off and cut a piece of wood 1m long having used a measuring tape with 1cm graduations, and you check it using a measuring tape with 1cm graduations, you'll say it's the right length. If you had 1mm graduations you might say it's slightly too long or too short, but if that (mm) tape was on hand I would have used it as well, and you would see no error. You only get out what you put in. (that's a simplified example, obviously, but I think the concept is clear)

This in no way corresponds to conversions of 'old', relatively poorly researched tracks, or scratch made tracks with either not enough work done overall or too much emphasis on making it pretty and not enough on the track surface itself. Of course, when you're relying on reference material some tracks will provide more than others, something that isn't true for LS.

LS is great, and if LS tracks are ever included in the rF series no one's going to complain (realistically it would probably require the technology to become cheaper, or a different pay model, for ISI to recoup the costs so I wouldn't hold my breath). But non-LS doesn't have to be so far away from reality.