It comes down to what one feels what he/she Is more comfortable driving, and the sensations he/she receives from that sim. As someone told me many moons ago, the best sim Is the one you enjoy the most. This was from a flight sim perspective but applies to any decent sim. Then there´s two other "factors", fun factor and what degree of simulation Is expected. Personally and others think likewise, a sim Is a tool, more precisely a learning tool. Pros, and student´s use sims to practice there techniques and learn other doctrines Inside the theme of the sim In use. As a example, In a racing sim, one would practice foot technique, learn tracks, exit and entry zones, radio discipline etc. On a flight sim, one would practice start-up procedures, cockpit flows, ATC discipline etc. Again, both sims are used as learning tools and that´s what there for. Still, some are Inclined to think and ask that a sim be realistic, when anybody who has driven a real sports car, or flown In a real plane will tell you that real life has little to do with what you feel In a sim. Then we have the fun factor, some sims are just more fun to play then others, and that´s were they stand out among others. Not because they are better at transmitting sensations and/or are more technically challenging, but because they are more fun to play or even more easy to get Into, for example RaceRoom, or AC. Now don´t get me wrong, I am not saying you can´t learn from RRE, AC or any other quality sim. Personally I just feel I learn more from rF2 then any other sim that´s all. In the end It´s what you feel better with, at least that´s how I see It. Again, they are tools to make you a better driver/pilot, and not a more "realistic" driver/pilot. You will need a real car for that I am afraid.
As an ACC driver mainly, I can relate. RF2 is a nicer, easier driving experience. Elements of it are more dynamic and less punishing. ACC has a very punishing simulation. The cars are more pitch sensitive, the tyre model is unforgiving and your really need to work around the TC, as it will kill laptime on ACC. The small slides and slips tend to hurt more on ACC too. RF2 is more forgiving, and it has an element of being more enjoyable in that sense. So rf2 is you want an enjoyable experience with a simpler dynamic, ACC if you want a more challenging race where you need to keep the car pitch in check on each corner (much like real life I'd guess).
ACC more challanging? For me its a very boring and sluggish caused by much to high mass inertia driving experience. So different impressions can be.
I had issues with braking with G29 pedals in ACC for ages. Adjusted pedal sensitivity using USB Game Controller settings in Windows and adjust brake gamma in ACC. Transformed the game for me. Feel free to message me directly for more info (without hijacking this thread), just in case you haven't tried any of that.
That's where I think the problem lies. Jimmi Alisson, an employee of S397 has himself sat in the GT3 in real life and has driven them. And he himself says that in real life the cars are much easier to drive than in a sim! Since we don't have G forces. That makes sense! We as SimRacers have to interpret a lot ourselves, what happens in the next moment. And that's the point where Kunos wants too much in my opinion. The physic is too stiff, too unfelxible, it simply leaves no room for error, that FFB is not informative enough. The pros in RL do not drive like robots completely error-free. A small slip here or there happens quickly, but in my opinion is not punished as harshly as in some places in ACC. That scares me away from ACC, this absolute perfection. Not to mention the curbs. They feel like bombs in places, even with soft suspension and dampers. Compare the 488 GT3 Onboard Monza on YT. There the pros also bang over the curbs. In ACC almost impossible without flying off. rF2 conveys much more in the FFB, which you get in RL not at all on the steering wheel, but on the Chassie and the G forces. rF2 offers with its FFB the perfect (well almost, except our creator nothing is perfect) best compromise between RL and simulation. I feel and experience at the steering wheel what the vehicle is doing. The perfection in rF2 for me is the M2 CS. It feels like my own skin. I miss that in ACC. It limits itself too much.
The M2 CS is in ACC. I find the ACC ffb to be very good. I actually think rf2 (as standard at least) is a clipping mess with a lot of jolts and so on. But after a lot of tweaking, I have a nice feel now. Yeah the ferrari in ACC can be like driving a plank of wood. I think the devs are aware and plan to make some changes.
Hi Memo. I have been using rF2 for almost 9 years. All the comments I've read from people who seem to really know it + my own impression from 4000 hours of rFactor 2 (at least 2000 hours of driving) indicate that the FFB of rFactor 2 is extremely realistic. That is to say transcribe very precisely and with great realism what we should feel in the steering wheel from the torque delivered by the steering column. So can you explain to me what makes you think that certain effects/feelings do not exist in real life and therefore should not be in the FFB of a simulation, if we want an FFB that really represents reality ? The only fake effect I feel is when you hit a wall or a car (can be disabled in the files). Thx
