Rf2 compared to other sims?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by LokiD, Apr 18, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. avenger82

    avenger82 Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    342
    I know rF pro allows exchanging physics engine. I didn't know a F1 team first developed similar TM to CPM in rF2. I thought ISI developed and patented it. Maybe you mean they first used brush model approach instead of Pacejka based and that inspired ISI?
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2020
  2. stonec

    stonec Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Actually no, here is a replay from Tim saying they did work on the engine for rF2 Pro.
    I'm guessing here a bit, but I think people would find rF Pro behave a lot closer to rF2 than they'd think. Probably the main difference is that rF Pro has better data available both for modeling cars and tracks.
     
    David O'Reilly likes this.
  3. Tommy2Fingers

    Tommy2Fingers Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    41
    yeah, you would think having the buggiest sim out there would be enough motivation to make fixing these bugs your number one priority.
     
  4. Gonzo

    Gonzo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    303
    Read again what i wrote. rFpro allows the customer to EXCHANGE parts of the physics engine. besides of this its pretty similar to rF2.

    Nowadays things with rFPro might have changed.
     
  5. avenger82

    avenger82 Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    342
    There’s no such thing like rF2 pro. I believe it’s just rF pro which keeps evolving
     
    Filip likes this.
  6. hitm4k3r

    hitm4k3r Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    This has nothing to do with poor gameplay design or choices, but that the users/drivers use their brain. This is indeed something that seperates simulations from simple racing games and that we have an option is great in my opinion. There are many racing series where drivers queue up at the red light, including F1 or MotoGP so just because Daniel Abt, someone who didn't bring anything together as a racing driver, says that it is stupid doesn't make it an universal truth. In fact, everyone should know what the red light means as that's something that kids learn as soon as they are taking part in traffic, yet nobody of those pros is grown up enough to admit an error, because it's "just a game" and they are the pros. It doesn't make those drivers look any good in my opinion when even some arm chair racers get their stuff together and it makes me wonder if they understand their position as people who should lead with an example. At this point I should also admit that I consider Nicki and Daniel as rich spoilt kids of famous racing drivers, so I am more than carefull with their opinion - and following some of Nicki's streams in the current situation just shows that I am not completely off the mark. I've never seen such a shortfuse who instantly ragequits as soon as something isn't going as he likes.

    If you have ever tried to get a plane in DCS started wich requires reading manuals you will understand this a bit better. Simulating something properly doesn't make it a poor design choice and just because the pro drivers get annoyed while they are just trying to have some fun at something that tries to replicate their JOB shows that ISI did something right in creating a serious product. What I think is actually much more of a poor design choice is the lack of any form of tutorial in the game - something that should be integrated into the new UI from my perspective. Maybe something like a "Getting started" in ten short clips, driving lessons similar to GTR2 or a crew chief giving you a hint would actually be the most immersive way of dealing with this. But going by your logic we will end up with "sims" that are indeed just games and require less and less interaction from the users, wich is the whole point of simulations. Erasing stuff is not the way to fix things. :)
     
  7. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    I am not sure, the products aren't different at all, apart specifics they are essentially same - simulation of cars, and modding platform. But perhaps AC is closest to average guy likes and judgement. AC also just works and has lots of relatively same level content. AC has several advantages that comes right out of its disadvantages, while in rF2 several disadvantages are just advantages, and some advantages sometimes turns out as disadvantages, especially when it doesn't feel quite polished, while not having something at all is advantage at this point since there is nothing unpolished, cause there is nothing.

    Kunos took murphys law- "what could go wrong, will go wrong", and made as less as possible "gone wrong" scenarios, sometimes with expense of realism, but also they are small studio and they had to use their time and resources very rationally. Ironically it seems like it is some kind of sweetspot of being realism/fun because some lacks doesn't make it technicall worse than reality, but I wish people would keep wanting more realism, but many can't even tell it further from there. ACC was perfect example of how going more advanced can be perceived as becoming worse because of becoming rougher. I am generally concerned about how realism is not becoming an ultimate goal of simulation, because there is certain level of "real" that most will find to be totally satisfying and it might not be that high. Moreover, I think the further motorsport in real life is getting away from purely mechanical sport, to electronics, aero and so on... the less will people be mechanically sympathetic and will be less able to judge the very fundamentals of why car does what it does, and that is bad thing.

    rF2 is not entirely "shortcut" free too. Messing up a gear with clutch and manual stick shifter in rF2 ? I mean you can use a plugin mod, but... but I like that I have to drop the clutch if I spin out not to stall, or that I have to turn engine on again if I stall, unlike in AC. Having issues of too low tire pressures ? Probably none. But it could be set so that cars couldn't simply use too low pressures, I guess thats biggest cheat of rF2, but in AC its just predefined values, not entirely physical like in rF2. Back to your point for pit limiter absence in some cars, and speeding pits and other things like that that can upset new user, I think it is best to have those on "easy" mode by default for newcomers. Personally I use flag rules off, because it saves my time for cars testing that I work on, or if I just want to spend less time...
     
    atomed likes this.
  8. hitm4k3r

    hitm4k3r Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    Some good points. Essentially both are simulations, but the different focus get's obvious when you see how they were advertised, one as being the driving simulation and the other one as the racing simulation. The thing is, I consider it as nice to not allways be treated like an complete idiot and to be challenged, because that is the thing that actually makes simulations fun from my perspective. From a commercial POV Kunos went the better way, the question is what's really driving this genre forward. I won't argue that stuff like the missing temps and half baken transmission models are something that I would like to see fixed asap in rF2, but in the grand scheme of things it just offers just so much more that I would feel sad if AC was the benchmark for the genre at the current time, just because it has the most players. The sim genre moving to the quick-time stuff that first person shooters invented some years ago would be a pain in the butt. Just to give you an idea what I am going after: I recently bought the Formula NA pack from VRC because I wanted to give the cars a shot and they are indeed great cars. Getting to race them in AC is something else though because the MP is GT3 at Spa/Monza or Tourist 24/7 and the singleplay is sh!t ... simple as that:p
     
    atomed likes this.
  9. Navigator

    Navigator Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,275
    Likes Received:
    389
    Well, isn't that the whole issue here?
    Aren't we waiting on that for what, 6 years now?
    What do we get? Smaller fixes, not all problems fixed even after 6 years, eventually a new UI and a lot of payware..........

    That would be nice and doable, if all problems were out and it ran perfectly.
     
    Emery likes this.
  10. LokiD

    LokiD Registered

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Some nice points here.

    I think were all in the same boat we all appreciate rf2 but we know its faults.

    Some of us (me) are rather vocal about it and let the innocent people here have to listen to the same ol crap as it were.

    Maybe that's the wrong way but like you we still want rf2 to succeed.

    We wear our hearts on our sleeves as it were. Annoyingly to others ha

    So sorry.
     
    atomed likes this.
  11. David O'Reilly

    David O'Reilly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    756
    I beg to differ.
    I watched a video of a current F1 team using Rfactor in their simulator.
    They didn't elaborate on "1 or 2" but stated they build their own mod.
    I hope you don't ask me for a link as like many of us I've watched hundreds lately!!

    Not sure how you can "swap the physics". The physics engine is the physics engine.

    Neither am I sure how you can comment on Esports without watching any?
     
  12. avenger82

    avenger82 Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    342
    They didn’t use rFactor. They used rFactor pro with partially or completely different physics engine. Also all manufacturers build their cars physics from scratch using their own data in rF pro. That’s what I’ve read on publicly available sources. If you can find contrary information then please provide link. Someone might’ve said rFactor, but it was rF pro.

    I watched only very small part of recent rF2 e-sport events, but I’m more or less aware which drivers participate based on few articles, news and comments.
     
  13. Lazza

    Lazza Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,345
    Likes Received:
    6,572
    I think you should throw away the P word. Pacejka was surpassed by about 2004 at the latest, from rF1's initial release the only part of the .tbc that you could sort of relate to pacejka is the shape of the sliptables, but the fact that it used sliptables open to interpolation and the host of parameters modifying them meant that it was very much an advancement on pacejka. Some of the early rFactor marketing stated this explicitly. I think it's doing rFactor, and any derivative games, a disservice to mention pacejka. I'm not familiar with F1C modding so I don't know what it used.

    Splitting hairs a little, I know :)

    @davidporeilly let's not forget that rFPro is rFactorPro - I would fully believe a team might call it rFactor for simplicity.

    The very first plugin interface for rF2 had leftover code (I think very likely from rFPro) which allowed for much greater visibility of the physics and environment (the physical environment in each tyre's vicinity, and direct access to various aspects of the physics which would have allowed for excellent vehicle systems implementation). I think it's been stated a number of times that professional teams plug their own physics in, and I would suspect they may even tune things a little to bridge the simulation to real-life gap (*gasp*! Perhaps even moving away from completely accurate physics in doing so! I'm a blasphemer!).

    Of course none of that plugin interface was active in rF2, but it was an eye opener.
     
  14. avenger82

    avenger82 Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    342
    Many people share similar thoughts. I’ve also been lately increasingly frustrated with what it seems ultra slow development and progress (or lack of). I guess dev team is severely understaffed or dev processes are suboptimal to put it lightly. It looks like S397 put every developer 100% into UI and graphics, even if they didn’t have experience in it. Because we don’t hear on any progress in other parts like physics, AI, dashboards, or any fixes for long standing issues( that were also acknowledged long time ago). Yes there was some new content released in a meantime, but no fixes for already released.
    Also I haven’t tried new beta UI, but from what I’ve heard it’s not revolutionary and no one seems impressed with results so far. I know they had to refactor/rewrite a lot of underlying code because it didn’t use MVC pattern, but new UI was being teased like two years ago.
    I just hope when it’s released, development /maintenance in other areas will be restored.
     
    Marisa, atomed and LokiD like this.
  15. avenger82

    avenger82 Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    342
    IIRC racing teams mostly use rF pro physics engine, partially adjusted, but big customers/manufacturers may use their own physics engine along with their mod build from scratch. Porsche is one of few manufacturers who used rFactor 2 instead of rF pro for their private 911 GT3 Cup car.
     
  16. avenger82

    avenger82 Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    342
    You probably have much better knowledge, but everywhere I read it looked like rF1 and even games based on gMotor2 engine including AMS, used Pacejka based model. For sure AMS still uses at least empirical model based on generated curves - I saw it in one of Neils H. videos where he showed his impressive physics spreadsheet.
     
  17. Paul McC

    Paul McC Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    757
    For fecks sakes, every day I discover a new problem! Watched a film last night with a Corvette ZR1 in it and got inspired! Thought great! I’m gunna go drive one, be fun to see how fast the road car gets round Le Mans compared to the GT3 Corvette, so fire up RF2 all stoked for it, when the track finally loads I get on track with 17 a.i. What happens as soon as I get behind another car... It’s got a flashing transparent box round the back of it, they all have! So that’s the Corvette & The Honda NSX that have glaring issues now. The Honda I found out recently has its side windows freak out half way through a race, they suddenly go all fuzzy and weird. This is official card and track for fecks sake! Once again, I love this sim, but! It’s like every other day after waiting for everything to load and get halfway into a session something pops up to kill your buzz. Agghh!!!
     
  18. avenger82

    avenger82 Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    342
    Long time ago I had issues when some cars had semi transparent box around them. I don’t recall what solved it.
    Now I sometimes see transparent circle at the back and settling heat haze to 0 in player.json fixes it.
     
  19. hitm4k3r

    hitm4k3r Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    The thing is, if you take a close look into the workshop you will see that the street versions of the Corvette and the Honda NSX are distributed by ISI and not S397. So in that sense it's not officialy supported and it is a bit messy by S397 that this content gets installed automaticly (please correct me if I am wrong). Wich is a shame from my perspective because they are still great cars and wouldn't require heaps of work to be brought up to spec. If anything it's a missed opportunity and a shame that noone feels responsible for it.

    @avenger82 I think the problem with the Corvette and the NSX is that it uses some custom shaders that Some1 added to them.
     
  20. DrivingFast

    DrivingFast Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    1,083
    I wonder how good these cars would be and seem realistic (would seem) with flex chassis and the latest tire model..... + DX11
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page