Authentic Tracks

I've heard that the laser scanned tracks provide the most authentic and accurate track layout, atleast when it comes to track smoothness or the lack of it, which makes perfect sense.
What are the other methods of making the track authentic, especially when talking about the surface?

On the other note... finally got myself into trying out the night racing. Sebring has never been more exiting, absolutely brilliant!

 

for me scanning isn't important.

i prefer historic tracks

 

Well I disagree how important it (scanning) is. And I think our next track will show that.

Main issue, of course, is that when a section gets repaved, or the whole track, you're going to spend a lot of money, and you're then about as accurate as every non-scanned track. I agree that it is the best way to get the most accurate surface, but only until it isn't accurate anymore...

 

I wondered about this, but isnt laser scanning a safe way to properly read changes of altitude?

 

This might enlighten you, http://youtu.be/UYBkB8SbAQ0?t=2m17s

 

CAD can be incredibly inaccurate as well, depening on the quality of the source. I've seen CAD-drawings of tracks which clearly were not built according to those architectural documents.

I think laser-scanning can only be viable the way it exists right now - it's expensive and only a very few companies/sims offer it. That makes it unique enough to be a selling point and allow them to sell more units of the sim or push more paid-for-content. If everyone did it there would be no commercial benefit from it beyond perhaps a slight increase in overall sales as more semi-professional drivers might take up sims to practice tracks they run in real life.

A few years ago GPS was all the rage. Anyone who now has GPS in their phone and tried tracking even just a walk across the field will have first-hand experience of how accurate that is. At least laser-scanning has the potential to be much more accurate than that.
There's some hurdles to cross on the art side of production where you will have to make something of that scanned data first and that still is a step where imperfections can be introduced. Generally you also have to differentiate between different types of scanning (LIDAR or the expensive kind iRacing does). It's a sad truth that very few of us ever visit a race track with anything like a racing car, let alone all those we can drive on virtually. We wouldn't know the differences in the fine granularity if a track was off.
Expanding on the art aspect of a digital recreation of a real life venue, you could have perfect reference data and still muck it up. iRacing tracks aren't good just because they're laser scanned, they're good because they did a good job of producing them. For a good art production you don't need to have the track laser-scanned though, as feels3 has shown and as I guess ISI's next track will be if Tim says so.

And yeah, scanned tracks going out-of date is horrible. Even just a re-pave invalidates the data. iRacing went with the all-out all-scanned approach, rescanning an oval for the new surface. Modifications like the new turns at Lime Rock Park can't be done quickly by relying on scan-data. Let alone more significant changes like at Silverstone. IIRC iR staff also advanced the argument that track surfaces had to settle first before they could be re-scanned. Those are all big downsides to that process, even if you were to assume the basic methodology behind it is perfectly accurate.

 

The altitude of a laser scan is still using GPS for positioning anyway. The altitude at each end is set by GPS even when a track is laser scanned. CHANGES of altitude, yes, it's great, but then so is doing a good job of surveying.

Major advantage to scanning, of course, is that you know it's right (when scanned), and it's quite foolproof. Surveying, meanwhile, is reliant on the people using the information. If they do a bad job, it's harder for good data to compensate. But our guys are pretty good.

 

I wish we could do a promo vid like that... lol

 

Nice post.

 

No it doesnt, surveying sometimes is over valued.

that is my experience many times (not with tracks lol, but IRL)

I take your word, my concern is not if every crack on the tarmac is accurate, as you rightly said this might change, but if changes of altitude are presented accurately.

 

Did you mean you think it is important, or not so important?

I do like to think that I get to experience something authentic as possible from real life when I enter a sim (reason why I am a sim buff), but how accurate is realisticly possible, and would I even notice the difference... no idea.
I also do enjoy a good track in a sim, is it real or not, so thats not the point here.
I dont know how important it is to laser scan the tracks, cause I dont know what are the other methods of making it accurate, hence why Im asking it.

You can put some sensors in the car, drive around the track, video tape it, take pictures, run around with all kinds of gizmos till you are blue in the face, and simple read the telemetry, as they did in that video mianiak posted.
Is this info being purchased from somewhere cause I have hard time believing that every sim making company runs around the world measuring tracks like that? How does the modders get these things accomplished?

Now when any road is resurfaced, couple things changes, the smoothness and the grip for example, but it doesnt remove the bumbs that are in the layout especially if its just a new asphalt. What is the difference in laser scanning and the other methods accuracy level?

 

Thanks, that enlightened me some more, and answered few questions I was writing down while you went and read my mind.

 

A big benefit that came together with laser scanning was microbumps. Real 3d numbers of bumps around a track. This was a big part that made laser scanning so special. Modders meanwhile got the glimpse and many new scratch made tracks do offer a fair amount of microbumps in the right/real places.

I personally think if a track isn't too off (driving a turn in a hole different gear/speed or strange altitudes) it all comes down to immersion. So if you step into the car and get the feeling of being at the track right now, it isn't important anymore if the real bump is a centimeter off of the real place...

 

@Tim: could you explain why rFactor Pro is using Laser-Scanned-Tracks (LIDAR) when they can reach comparable results without this expensive method?

Maybe laser scanning revealed a level of accuracy that isn't needed (and profitable) for a Racing GAME, but for a High Quality Racing Simulation (and i count rF2 to that) it is a nice advantage.

 

A proffesional race team (I believe the majority of the F1 teams is using rFpro???) needs the data to be exact, they need to now any bump, completely correct. That way the drivers can search the limit, but also they can do setup work before the actual weekend. I'm sure they pay for it.

The approach to rF2 seems to have it more accessible for everyone, including keeping the costs low, so that the majority can easily afford it. They don't seem to like the iRacing pricemodel for their game (and I for one am very happy about that).

NOTE :: this are my assumptions, not actual facts.

 

BTW terrible input lag. That's one reason why game consoles aren't for hardcore simracers.

 

That's ok just rename the track to something like Monza April 8 1989 - Aug 4th 1993 j/k lol.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

"Assumption is the mother of all f*** ups"

Having said that, I agree with some of your assumptions, appart from majority of F1 teams, I have no opinnion/knowledge about that.
Since the rFactor Pro is not a consumer product, it is expensive as hell most likely, and for the money I assume that the customers expect accuracy as perfect as possible.

The price.
Ive been playing quite steadily an mmo of all kinds really, usually running only one at the time, but paying that 12 euros/dollars a month for the past 10 years solid. I really dont mind a game having a monthly fee at all, it usually guarantees service, not that its impossible to get some without a monthly fee but anyways...
Reason I havent gone into iRacing is the lack of AI and the monthly fee (oddly enough) combined, and thats that.
If rF2 has a fee to play, and that means I get more content, Im happy to pay up. (within a reason ofcourse)

 

Exactly what I was thinking too.

Laser scanned track doesn't matter to guy like me who doesn't race at real tracks. However I've once participated a laser scanning event and sure is extremely handy way of creating accurate 3D data. As device prices go down in the future I believe laser scanning will be widely used method for track creation.