Is ISI still working on the tire model ?

Hmm I was just going to ask if ISI would really just set too sharp slipcurve so you get no grip just after limit.. then I realized its all different in rf2. I haven't taken a look at tyre files myself yet.
I'm definitely worried that this new tyre model is a double edged sword, theoretically we can get much more realistic tyres but for most people its going to be impossible to get it right.

 

When I talked with an actual Formula 3 Car Engineer about the new rF2 tiremodel, he said me it looks 100% pro-engineering stuff. No way to work on those parameters without a specific knowledge. No matter if you've real data or not...you've to know how to manage those data...as it's not just about input X values into the TGM.

 

It's not about making things harder, but making them spot-on with reality.

Here's something interesting to read related to grip faloff (quote in first post): LINK
As you can see, a specific case of car behavior is described and it clearily mentions less lateral grip then you're overdoing it.


You won't find me saying that harder = more realistic, but you will not find me saying the opposite either. I just don't tend to say anything is better unless I have some reliable information. And in case of tyres few of us have that kind of knowledge.


I once saw Fiat Punto spinning in the middle of a city on a straight road (no crossroads there - just lightly bent straight road). Driving instructor was sitting in passenger seat with young girl leaning how to drive sitting on driver's seat.
Straight road, no cars around, no pedestrians, no animals, no water, no obstacles, nice sunny weather - she couldn't be doing more than 40-50 km/h and she lost control of that front-drive car anyway

Now try driving 50 km/h in rFactor with Clio or Megane.... It will feel soooo slow. That's because race track is much wider than public road and it has no lanes. And if you spin at that speed, you will instantly go to forums to report a bug in tire grip

I did everything I could to spin a Clio at 50 km/h in rFactor and it just wouldn't spin. I could jump into conclusion that ISI is using too little grip falloff, but I won't. I think the same also applies to saying that using less grip falloff is more realistic.
I just think we don't even scratch the surface of the whole thing with the limited knowledge we have and simply because some car "feels good" in simulation doesn't mean it's better than the one that's "more challenging" and that difficult car needs an update.

 

analyze the tires with ttool, you'll see this is wrong.

 

My guess is that the people who can work on them will come up with repositories of somewhat "generic" tyre types which can be more easily adapted by various modders, so that every single modder doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. Or tyre, in this instance...

 

Bravo (stands and applauds)

First, it was "harder = realistic"...... then, "Harder may not always = realistic"..... Now, there seems to be a trend, "Harder never = realistic."

If a car is hard to drive, it's automatically unrealistic. That really bothers me. There is no hard rule. But I hear more and more people say this.

This new "trend in thinking" has been really propagated by an "unnamed company" who crowd sources their development funds and uses an old TV driver to "correct" their physics

 

If you guys think Niels does a better tire than ISI you guys are insane. No point in even continuing any sort of discussion. ISI purchases real tire data, they have a professional tire consultant. Maybe give this a read first. Not saying there is anything wrong with Niels but I would bet he would not say that he does a better job than ISI. Some of you guys need to get a grip.


http://imagespaceinc.com/technology/car-models-physics/

 

+1!

 

Comparing the FISI to GSC's F1, the FISI is a frenzy in 1st and 2nd, no matter whether I run short or high gears, and also feels very rigid when cornering at high speed fast change of direction sections, the F1 Reiza OTOH is beautifully progressive/responsive under throttle, and doesn't have that coarse chassis feel when cornering at high speeds, but certainly the FISI seems to be more involving with tires.

That said, I much prefer the F Reiza over the FISI.

It'd be interesting to drive a Game Stock Car F2/1 from the 60's, that would have to be classic!!!

 

I agree, certainly with some cars in RF2, but I also think that the best RF2 cars and the best cars in GSC 2012 are a bit better now.
The RACEON 2009 SS Camaro is a good honest sort of a sim car, but Reiza's Camaro takes it to another level by improving on virtually every aspect of the car.
I still very much like the US Muscle Car Camaro and the 1970 Camaro from the Retro max expansion, they're still 2 cars I'd drive from time to time, but I think overall, Reiza has the best set of cars, and RF2 has the best set of classic cars and obviously has huge potential as far as any mod car or future ISI base car.

 

If we compare the stuff done in rFactor1, Niels does better tires than ISI by far.

 

I tried long time ago but the tool was very unstable for me. Is it possible to plot graphs of lateral forces vs slip angle?

Edit: anyway I mentioned rF1 tyres. Maybe (probably) they are better now.

 

Suggesting that someone's an idiot is not a very effective way of presenting your point of view


I like this particular Mark Twain's quote, but quoting it during disagreement is definitely not what it was meant for. It's rather something to keep in mind.

If you try to use this quote as a "weapon", then you're dragging discussion one level down yourself, which means you missed Mark Twain's point in the first place.

Stick to the topic and keep cool, unless you want another thread reported and closed.

 

If it's so obvious for you, do you care to explain in what were ISI's rF1 tires better?

 

That would be fantastic. But I'm skeptical. Look at how many resources there are for rf1 or any other sim. I think it's because modders are also simracers and those are somewhat closer to real racers by their nature so they are very competitive. We mostly want to be better than the next guy not just when racing but also when developing so there is veryyyyyyy little shared knowledge overall.


But in the end this hurts everybody - that's also why so many mods suck, despite being released 5 years after rf release. Everybody has to reinvent wheels all the time, it is ineffective. I don't see that change very much with rf2.

And yet I have to laugh every time I read "this mod has scratch made stuff". I don't buy it. In my opinion, huge portion of modders just start with Niels' tyres or something that just works and change all the numbers so long until it looks different.

 

True, my vision is a bit optimistic. Seeing how hard developing great tyres is at the moment though I hope that people that do tyres good would become as respected as modeling guys etc.

One can hope.

 

The thing with project cars is its actualy harder to drive at the limit , the game forces you to drive under the limmit and as long as you stay there you can do lap after uninvolved tedouse lap.

in some ways the grippy cars in RF2 are the same though granted no where near as bad and the FFB in RF2 is far more lively and comes directly from the track.

Pcars is different from rf2 in that the tires are SUPER SUPER gripping until they give out then the drifts and other car mechanics seem totally baked.

Rf2 it seems like the fundamentals are there and that the engin is not "cheeting" if you like but its just a case that when the tires give out they give out very fast and when you are in that band of low grip and starting to slide you have way less control over the car than you would have in real life.

RF1 and RF2 grippy tire model are prityt much spot on in the sense of when a tire has grip and when it does not , the issue is of how the car handles once it is that low grip state and how the car then regains grip.

NKP with the SK2 or whatever its called , the car is arguably to slippy but at least when you start to slide you can recover it EXACTLY as they do in real life and at least when in a very modest slide you have full controle over the car with both the steering and the brake.

Same with GSC the cars are probably slightly slippy compared to there real life counter parts but again at least they are progressive , stable , and the car is not "lost" at such a narrow margin as it is in rf2 and most rf1 mods.

Its like we need the general grip and tire mechanics of RF2 how its set up now but we just need a more progressive and stable tire at the lower ends of grip.

Watching the F1 this weekend and Silverstone and I sore a couple of times in the race drivers do what you do in NKP that is when the car is on a long high speed corner and begins to gradually under-steer off , the driver does a quick shuffle of the wheel to get grip back into the front tires the car remains totally stable when doing this , this is something that is totally missing from RF1 and RF2 at this point in time. in RF1 and 2 with gripy cars when you are at the limit of grip like that any additional brake or sudden wheel movements will just cause the tires to totally give out and you will spin off the track.

As good as RF1 and RF2 tire models are maybe they overlook some fundamental thing that in reality gives stability to a car once the tire has lost a good promotion of its grip?

maybe nkp GSC and other games that most top sim racers agree are very solid simply fudge the tire model when it comes to the low end grip ?

Watching that professor and other people talk about tire models it seems that regardless of the quality of the simulation of the tire , the tire data available and the strength of the core tire model. The top and bottom ends of the tire model require a subjective choice by the programmer with them adding in properties that come from outside the internal mathematical formula.

Maybe its within these subjective paramites and the implementation of the top and bottom end that produces these massive differences between simulators like NKP and RF2

 

GSC is using the exact same physics engine as RF1... so it's a matter of how realistic are the values you put on the physic files.

 

Why care that much about "on paper physics" if the cars are deemed unrealistic by the end user?
Do experienced sim racers who've read about how to drive race cars always have to default to the opinions of a tiny handful who somehow handle these weird cars?
How would a sim racer convince a console racer to try/move to PC sims, do you think it makes sense to throw the 60F1 at them and say "there it is, the height of realism by virtue of extreme difficulty".

In GSC for example, the F1 Reiza instantly responds to my sim skills, but try and take pole position amongst a group of fast GSC racers and see what happens, plus I'm pretty sure that model has better FFB than GSC2011.

It seems to me that experienced sim racers shouldn't be having major problems with ANY car except when approaching the very fastest times, ie, the exact sim skills that allow you to pole in a slow WTCC BMW are the same one's you use in a F1 car, granted you'll have to get used to the extra speed, but it's illogical to assume one can't ever feel comfortable with a sim car at their own pace.