So hows AC for you?

AC invisible wall fun weeee.

lopl

Get Formula Truck, was I wrong about rF2 or GPL tj ? p

See in here you can't say anything bad about it without being treated like a backwards kid.

 

This forum is alright, but try discussions at virtualr.net. People there seem like brainwashed robots, say anything else that AC is a complete revolution redefining the genre with brilliant graphics, unbelievable car handling and 54211317x more realistic physics and fidelity than all previous and future sims combined and you will be EATEN ALIVE.

 

Not only there.
There are obscure places filled with people with paper bags in their heads with couple of holes and waiting for Tech Preview 3 (2 released last week).

 

I've not really got on with AC, feels a bit Arcady (dare I say)
But wondering if it's just how I have it setup (I do have all aids off) because so many are saying how brilliant it is

To me it makes rf2 ( & Iracing ) seem ever better

Going to have a fiddle tomorrow ffb settings etc but not holding up much hope

P.s I want it to be good/true sim as I like to have x3 good sims (at mo x2 rf2 & iracing) but so far to me it (AC) isn't

 

I'm waiting until the demo to try it, but from the videos I've seen, it looks like you can be sloppy and not be punished, like in DTM Experience.

 

All sims can be good to lap fast imho

But most are terrible when you go "off your head" hehehe

Do some "strange" things in most sims they suddenly turn arcade like.

When you do these crazy things in rF2 it reacts much like I would expect.

 

lol... no mate you weren`t...

Never really been a truck kinda guy though but you never know.

 

You will never have better offline then them trucks not rF2 not GPL they dont even come close imho.


Don't worry about enviroment or weather, just race it , I forgot about the midday time in 1/2 a lap.

Plus with trucks you have a large canvas to paint .

Neel Jani has started track conversions to it too.

lopl



BTW tj
What stands out with FT is go and look for some posts bagging physics or tyres or Ai ........... like people do AC , pCARS and rFactor2
You will not find any.

 

Look at how much dancing with the tyre slip he does, look at how much he can sometimes make the car look planted on entry and mid corner but other times he needs to not only hesitate on applying look at turn-in, but even fully correct the car on turn-in to apex, as just the slightly wrong combination of steering/brake/throttle is making the car rotate, or even want to spin on the entry to apex phase. This is the "unsafe" highly dynamic and sensitive physics that you are seeing in real life, and we DO NOT experience it much if at all in AC because the physics have taken a turn for a safe furstrating and "familiar to most car drivers" feel, rather than this hardcore sensitivity to rear/front slip that you see in the video and that we get in just about any other sim (regardless of which one who are a fan of) BUT NOT (or not even close to nearly enough) in AC. Look at how the rear almost comes out on the chicane direction change because he wasnt "perfect enough" with his combination of steering/throttle/inputs relative to what the car/tyres were doing at that exact precise moment in time.

So much complex dynamics can be see here, and these are onboard videos where you hardly feel or see anything the driver feels, all we see are the bigger things that are visually noticeable in these videos, and yet even then we can still see so much complexity at work. It's so far from Assetto Corsa's almost bland, straightforward, "in-between console sims and hardcore PC sims" driving model, and it's SO REPRESENTATIVE of how technical and complex the driving fidelity and modelling are in RFactor based sims, IRacing, Netkar Pro and so on.

Driving at 8, 9 or 10/10ths opens up at a whole new world of physics that can make the car feel and act VERY slidey, uneasy, on the limit, nervous, sensitive to your inputs, etc. BUT, through enough feel, technique, skill, etc. you can for the most part stay in control of this without slowing down if you're good enough. The driving dynamics arent all "giddy" and basic like when you drive a car at 6 or 7/10ths, a little slide and correction here, another there. That is completely wrong. When driving hard you are CONSTANTLY managing the cars grip and slide angles from front to rear, where small differences in timing and technique of brake/throttle/steering can mean the difference between understeer, oversteer, slow oversteer, snappy oversteer, looking like you are glued, etc. This is all represented to a very high level in RFactor based sims, IRacing, and Netkar Pro, and completely "smudged/phased out" of AC's driving model.

AC gives are very good impression and "experience" of what it's like to drive a car around and give it some "stick" here and there, but it keeps it's same "6 or 7/10ths" driving dynamics even when you are pushing the car like mad, flying into corners, applying horrible brake technique with regards to the weight transfer and how you steer the car in the turn, using the slips to keep the car micro-drifting all along, etc. It just doesn't have the fidelity, the "hardcoreness" to do any of that in my mind, based on videos, my real life experiences, etc. It does a good job of giving the player the overall experience of that car, in a friendly and familiar to most feeling way, but it's driving dynamics for anyone wanting to use the game/sim as a tool, not just for fun but for people who are really serious about simulations and the pure act of recreating vehicle dynamics and how we as humans control these vehicle dynamics with our control inputs (steering/throttle/brake), it's just much, MUCH too lacking and "basic" with regards to it's handling/vehicle dynamics to compare to other sims in that regard.

The video above is more proof. Now, videos show much less "on the limit nervousness, twitchiness, slippy slidey etc." than the driver is actually having to deal with/feeling (whether it's front or rear end), yet even in that video I think my point comes across pretty clearly. It really compares well to other sims in general, and, shows how AC seems to have gone for this "make it feel good to not frustrate the player, and be relate-able to your average track day fun experience" physics, rather than highly dynamic and fidelic vehicle dynamics/handling behaviour.

I just don't understand how hardcore simracing fans like jameswesty and empty box and such fail to comprehend this. It's right there, you can just see it going on if you pay attention to the tiny corrections, and the moments of hesitation on the increase of steering angle (due to the rear-end starting to feel like it's going to start coming around because of the way the steering and brakes where used in combination with how the weight was transferred and then dealt with before the car became settled in and took a "stance").

 

Yes how sad. They should have made AC really hard to drive that way Spinelli could be sure that the cars were realistic. Don't worry about the evidence coming from actual drivers, telemetry data and the fact that AC is 0.2 Beta!

 

Yes its 0.2 beta, but rF2 had proper physics, ffb, and ok AI and useable multiplayer on first beta release.

I'm an actual driver and the telemetry that I use as evidence is neurons.
If you race the historic around brianza in both titles and you think that the AC one is better, more realistic then fair enough, your neurons work different.

I hope it gets better, I have no objection to there being more than one good sim on the market. I tried it again today and I still think it has a very iffy and console feel about it. Time attack should have you wanting to go again and again, beat that time..... but no it just leaves me cold. Maybe when there's AI and multiplayer. I hope so, and I hope competition between titles pushes things along for all our sakes.

So anyway as long as AC has tyre wear, weather, multiplayer, AI, and they sort the physics and ffb out within say a year, they will have done as good.

Incidentally today I noticed on the graphics in some ways the dx9 ISI efforts are superior than the dx11 stuff in AC which I can't believe I'm saying as I have complained in the past about the use of dx9. Example: the carbon dash in the zonda looks good in AC but the carbon dash in the megane is practically photo realistic, it always wows me. Yes they are representing different types of carbon weave and lacquer and yes they are both good. But the megane one looks exactly right, with the reflections the way it catches the light etc.

And yes close it and release us a new build for gods sake pleeeeeaaaaSSSSEEEEE!

 

Your intriguing me now D...

 

My neurons agree.

 

im analyzing the handling behavior and how dynamic it is, it has nothing to do with me liking a car that is really hard to drive. I posted (along with others) videos clearly showing how dynamic real life is when pushing hard, just like in other sims, just like in some videos (although hard to see for the most part), just like I experienced in real life practically living/working at a race track for almost a year.

The video is showing lots of entry to mid corner unstableness and complex movements depending on how you operate the throttle/steerin/brakes, lots of dynamic changes to car balance and handling behavior based on your techniques and timing/precision. You can make it slippery or grippy depending on your skills/feel/car balance "6th sense"/reactions etc etc. This comes through beautifully in most sims (albiet in their own way & feel, along with their own particular "flawey" areas), EXCEPT AC.

The proof is right in front of your eyes, I don't know why you feel the need to get personal and act like I offended/attacked you. Don't take it personally just because you may not want to believe it

 

I like where rfactor 2 is heading, though I play rfactor 1 90% of the time, because oft the Mods.

... but I love AC. The philosophy behind it is just right. Whereas I find the features of rfactor 2 incredible, in an intellectual sort of way, I just had fun with AC the instant I played it. Rfactor 2 feels somehow removed and distant, whereas AC is up close and personal.

I really like the FFB and that cars are safe at low speeds, but get difficult the faster you get.

But that is just me... I'm no professional racedriver like so many on this forum.

 

They might just be hardcore gamers.

 

EDIT: I Updated the link in my post 9 posts above (post #362). I had the completely wrong link before, it wasn't even a video. What I was trying to get across in that post should make more sense now.

 

It ain't about failing to comprehend, it's about perception varying from person to person. GSC drives even less dynamically than AC, does it make it any worse? The car in GSC - as much as I love it - feels wooden at best. The main difference is there is a bit more rear grip and a bit less inertia in AC, though even still it isn't a major departure. I approach both largely the same.

I've been around the block for a long while. I've come to the realization that it does not matter ONE BIT. Have you driven the 2-Eleven IRL? I sure haven't, and I dont need to pretend. Why do I say that?

Remember when Indy 500 : The Simulation was the pinnacle of simulation?
Remember when Grand Prix Legends was the pinnacle of simulation?
Remember when Nascar Racing 4 was the pinnacle of simulation?
Remember when F1C was the pinnacle of simulation?
Remember when GTR1 was the pinnacle of simulation?
Remember when rFactor was the pinnacle of simulation?
Remember when GTR2 was the pinnacle of simulation?
Remember when iRacing OTM was the pinnacle of simulation?
Remember when netKar Pro was the pinnacle of simulation?
Remember when rFactor 2 was the pinnacle of simulation?

Getting the picture yet? There is no perfect sim, they are all flawed. Speaking of a couple on the list...

Did you know, in 1967 every F1 driver was locked in a perma drift not because it was fast - but because there was so little grip the car was incapable of making a corner without sliding at any sort of speed?

When I joined iRacing, the Star Mazda was on the OTM. That car was entirely IMPOSSIBLE to spin - UNLESS you touched a curb which would always result in a spin. No matter how high, no matter how you set the car up it would spin. If you didn't touch a curb, the car was even less dynamic than the Formula Abarth. Yet that was "realistic". Most of us knew how flawed it was, now that they've stepped forward suddenly people are remember those days as "most realistic". That's quite hilarious.

In F1C and GTR1, there is an entirely silly lack of low speed grip. Everyone knows this, ISI knew it and that was one of the things improved in rF1. Yet both games were "realistic".
But wait, GTR2 is "realistic". Despite the silly turning with a slide to save a slide, a case could be made. Radically different from F1C and GTR1, I don't know if you are familiar with it, but the sh!tstorm on RSC the day the demo was released for GTR2 was one of the most hilarious days in sim racing history. Blame GTR2 for this endless "more difficult = more real" debate going nuclear.

The difference in "feel" between GSC and rF2 for me is immense. Both are pretty darn good in many regards physically, I think almost everyone would agree. Yet they get there differently. The car is doing the "same" things largely (accounting for engine limitations) but yet it's different in the way it's relayed. nKP yet again, it drives differently, it feels differently. 3 sims that fall into the "really good physics" category, 3 different experiences. Are any of those not sims? Are any of them "arcade"?

Get what I'm saying? You get to pick and choose. I've said it time and time again - I do feel like there is too much longitudinal grip and the throttle does feel insensitive which does create a feeling of safety and softness, but at such an early stage and the history behind it, why should I be spazzing out like some are? I've stuck with this thing here in rF2 for two years and the rear tires still don't like to work, but I can't give AC time? You get guys from everywhere of all backgrounds saying one is more realistic than another. 2-Eleven guy on the AC forums feels it's largely spot on, so is his feel correct? Is your feel correct? Is my feel correct?

Which is less realistic - rear tires not working creating setups that aren't as expected (Remember now, these setups are supposedly direct from their teams), or a less nervous car? You can find cars out there that fit both descriptions. This is why I feel rF2 works best for Historic cars and why AC is more convincing with modern GT race cars. To me, rF2's flaws work better with old cars, AC's flaws work best with modern race cars in creating a believable experience.

I'll put it this way, when I tried the AC Lotus 49 before the last update, the car was hilarious. While I think our perception of those cars is hilariously WRONG (Huge rear tires, narrow fronts, extreme rear weight bias - the car naturally is a bit more understeery than I think we "classically" think of them as, you know, the SIDEWAYS FER DAYZ "ideal") it was a hilariously messed up car to drive. It wouldn't rotate, it wouldn't turn, it wouldn't slide without being extraordinarily stupid with it. rF2's ISI Corvette feels like it just wants to turn around itself all the time on these weird spherical tires, like it has huge negative rear camber - despite being a race setup supposedly. Is it drivable? Of course. Is it the end all be all? Honestly, I'm not convinced. As of right now there is still that issue in the known issues of rF2 section regarding tire loading (too lazy to copy it) - which is written rather open to interpretation style, but I take it as the tires aren't transmitting the load properly, in other words the whole tire isn't "working" properly in terms of load distribution creating less tire to "lean" on. Put 2 and 2 together - if there is a issue with that, the inside portion of the tire would be more prominent, as if running more camber. It's my favorite ISI modern car, but it still feels flawed in that regard.

I sure as hell have never driven a Lotus 49, but I'm pretty sure AC isn't that super amazing that it's version of a Lotus 49 feels entirely different than any other Lotus 49 I've "driven".
I sure as hell have never driven a GT2 car, but I'm pretty sure rF2 isn't that super amazing that it's version of a GT2 car feels entirely different than any other GT2 I've "driven".

Every sim allows stupid things. Every sim behaves stupidly in various areas. Eventually you get to the point where it becomes pointless as you aren't actually driving anything in any of these games - the question is which is most convincing you that you are driving the car while still maintaining a strong level of realism. Until we get that one sim that perfectly creates all physics applicable to a racing automobile, we have to settle with areas being lackluster versus another.

Pick one. It's flawed.

Oh, and allow me to take a page out of the rF2 defense force book - you don't know the track conditions or tires used!