Is power-oversteer all that people care about when judging a sim-car?

Did you use 5 reactivations already ? If not reactivate. Unless you replaced hardware then you need to contact them.

Back up your license this time for when you reformat in the future .

EDIT: If you reinstalled Lite , Developer is a separate download .

 

I emailed them

I'm sure they will get back fast, but its still a bit backwards and the sort of thing that though simple is annoying to deal with as a user.

It is what it is though, I just want to try out the go carts

 

Here's that help section.
http://rfactor.net/web/docs/rfactor-2/activating/

 

?

 

If you go to User/App Data/Roaming/ & copy the .rfactor file to another location, when you reformat, you can replace this folder and not need to go through ISI for the reactivation.

 

I have commented more than once on your youtube videos with positive comments like good video, keep up the good work, etc. etc. so I don't what your problem is. Try easing up on the aggressive, ultra-defensive attitude will ya? It almost sounds like you think that my OP was all about you or something.... I could be wrong but maybe, just maybe, drop your ego?? (I can already see a response coming from you, sarcastically talking about how you have such a huge ego).


As for FFB impacting our judgement of pure in-game physics modelling (FFB related, nothing to do with the whole powerslide/oversteer thing), well everyone will have a different FFB experience based on many factors, such as the following:

1. Your in-game settings
2. Your out of game settings (notepad files)
3. Your wheel's control panel settings
4. The sim you are playing (even if they all use effects from physics rather than canned, at the end of the day it has to be programmed to use a host of effects from the suite of FFB effects available to any developer, those effects have to be programmed how to interact with the physics model, you are overly simplifying it by just saying that they simply are all are connected to the physics model and that's that, sorry not that simple.)
5. The wheel itself (even if everyone used the 100% same exact settings and sim from points 1-4, use a different wheel and it's another experience again).

6. Then there is your personal preference of what you like, what you expect, and what you need out of the FFB. This is a whole-nother issue in itself, but I am not going to even go there as this point alone is worthy of it's own thread.

The first 5 points (in combination with 6) can deliver many, many, different experiences and impressions of physics. Just look at how many people's impressions of pure in-game car physics change just by messing around with out-of-game FFB (points 1-5), let alone combinations of them.

Yup, a purpose built racecar and they give it massive drift car characteristics so that people can happily drift the car and "have fun" with it. I am not against fun, but please don't market something as a simulation if you are going to make compromise-style physics in order to please the large majority. On the other hand, in Raceroom's defence I believe they said they are not looking to make the most authentic as possible sim, so I can't blame them too much, but yes I completely understand the point you are trying to make; showcasing (and possibly designing the physics) of a pure motorsports racecar as a drift car for the sake of marketing, sales, popularity, etc. That is definitely not what a true-simulation piece of software would/should ever do (RFactor, IRacing, etc.), unless of course the car does that in real-life. If that same exact model Audi does that/can willingly do that in real-life then their video makes sense, but judging from the real-life video you posted, many other videos I've seen of the car, and general information I have read about the car, it definitely does not seem like it would just willingly and exaggeratingly drift like it does in that Simbin video.

If we are going to talk like 14 year olds in a Call of Duty vs Battlefield forum then I'll happily block the facepalm that was sent to you .

 

I'm sorry you feel it's an aggressively defensive answer, but it's the truth. If you think it is wrong, fix it! You even said you've watched my videos, by now you should know that I am a rather blunt person - lord knows I've thrown ISI under the bus numerous times when they have deserved it. I'm sorry, I just don't see the logic about complaining about what other people are saying in their own videos when you can just as easily be doing your own videos with your opinions - so on, and so forth. Don't like someone's review of a car? Write your own and actually explain things. No, I didn't feel your comment was directed at me personally, however when you actually do it for yourself, maybe your perception of why things are said may change. All it is is putting some words down, we can all do that.

1-6 - that is where experience comes into play, both with your hardware as well as the sim, simple as that. FFB can help, but it well never change the car so radically that it changes everything. I spent hours upon hours tweaking settings - wheel and .INIs - right around they started adding Chassis Flex. At the time rF2 felt like every car had extreme rear camber - the settings helped me better feel the car, but overall did not fix that feel, it was still distinctly there. Now since the implementation of chassis flex, those cars actually feel like they use the tire fairly well, rather than just using the inside shoulders. At the end of the day, regardless of your settings if you don't know your equipment or yourself you are lost anyways unless you are looking to do just static testing (such as how much G does a car pull on the skid pad, braking distances, flight distance - wait what?)

But more to the underlying point, if you want more detailed physics testing that appeals to you, why not do it? There is a pretty good chance someone else is interested in the exact same thing. The best way to get people to look at something deeper is to give them a reason to look at it deeper.

Re : R3E Audi... AWD, it's kind of like that. It's like FWD and the "one foot save" where you just mash the gas, countersteer and the car straightens up seemingly like magic from angles that to the untrained eye look absurdly impossible to return from.

Pretty sure you will see him hold 80 degree drifts with ease and speed here, thanks to the magic of AWD. I know you will say "but he's not on massive slicks", but consider - why use slicks for the purpose of showing off? The car would still be able to go stupid sideways, the reason you don't see any footage of that Audi going ridiculously sideways is because it's a race car, driven in a racing fashion. We all know ridiculous sideways is slow, though that does not mean the car is incapable of doing silly things. All the guy in the R3E video does is chuck it massively sideways like any car, then use the AWD to claw out of the corner - same thing you see here.

Oh, and for a laugh, here you go for a sim. Car is AWD, 730 HP on I believe R compound tires. iRacing kind of goes crazy a bit here as the physics explode, but I have little doubt you can very well do the same thing though I highly, highly, highly doubt it would be this violent. AWD donuts, they are a thing, and they are awesome. There are also plenty of videos of people AWD "drifting" in the same way the R3E video does with the Audi. Fudged physics or not from either, AWD "defies physics." Don't be surprised if LMP1s end up shockingly close to the F1 cars this year on speed!