have you tried the gp2 mod, I thought the rearend was more slippy then the other openwheelers, also had a nice firm ffb to it.
strawman much? lol. i cant engage with you, because you literally don't make any kind of sense. you don't engage with me, which does lead to frustration. 'arrogance' would be deeming an obvious simulator & its users 'casuals'. arrogance would be thinking that rf2 has nothing to learn from assetto corsa. you don't want more of the same? okie. lemme know the next time you play anything other than One True Sim & enjoy it, then.
yeah, sure is a nice car... feels a lot like an rf2 car in fact, as ive said. "Domi, one question. If AC is so good and the physical engine does not have any problem, because your GP2 MOD it's so bad?" l o l z
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6SS8vjgA3s Can't talk about pCars, the thing runs at 20-30fps for me since some months ago... but the physics behind weight transfer are really easy, so I doubt they don't have lift off oversteer. As long as wheelbase, front/rear tracks, CG height are correct, this effect should be always present, more or less. The shorter the wheelbase/tracks, the more weight is transfered.
You can't engage with me... Yet you do. Nonsense prevails yet again. What's even more nonsensical is that I clearly wrote a few posts back that I enjoy AC very much because it's a good game. You one'o'them types who don't fully read other people's posts before replying, I suspect. I just spent 2 hours drifting the living daylights out of an old BMW. Because it's fun. Like games are supposed to be. But you choose to see only what you want to see in my posts, which makes for full-on embarrassment of yourself. Sad stuff.
OMG! What have I started here? I was hoping to get an answer about the development status of the Cobra, but apparently I created a monster. Just my luck. May the frog be with you all! Btw, back in the LFS days...aww, on second thought, let's not go there. Have you guys ever thought about the idea that maybe, just maybe, the devs of racing sims are limiting their engines a) because of our current technology limitations and/or b) to compensate for what you "feel" in a real car. I mean there simply are no G-Forces to slam you about in your living room when you turn over your car. No matter how fancy your rig may be. Now, stop this bull**** and be nice, or else I will call for TIM! EDIT: If there is one guy in the whole Universe who deserves the title of rF2 fanboy, that would be mE!! ME! Got it!? EDIT2: Seriously though, I remember reading an article about the simulation of REAL tyre physics and how much firepower it takes to fully simulate the spectrum of a racing tyre. With our current living room tech it's just not possible or not affordable to the average guy. And even if you're one of those lucky few you would not have much eyecandy to go with it. In fact, you'll probably only see your contact patch. Not much fun racing like this, is it? As good as ISI's physics core may be, it sure as hell isn't 1:1 with real life. No sim is, that's why they're sims and not real life. Maybe some day, but I'm confident we won't be living long enough to see it.
rF2 has a very complex model and yes it does take tons of CPU time to calculate. But it doesn't do all the calculations in real time. Our CPU's aren't fast enough to do it in real time. They get around this by running through all the potential scenarios the tire would encounter and then builds a lookup table full of data which is then used during real time. This lookup table is why the tire files are so large. It isn't a simple slip angle lookup table like most of sims. It accounts for tons of parameters. It can take 4 hours to compile a tire with the ttool which you showed in that video.
This is... way too many numbers for my biological CPU. Eat this, you number junkies! Ha! http://code.eng.buffalo.edu/dat/sites/tire/tire.html Btw, what does it say?
I've seen a WIP spreadsheet for building TGM tires that has so much into it will make your head spin. Well, my head at least. I bet Niels would know what he was looking at. It would be awesome to get Niels onboard with tire dev in rF2. He is the master of rF1 tires.It took him a while to become the rF1 tire master though.
All this talk of tires is a nice mental exercise, however there never was made a Cobra with an autoclutch. If you can sim drive a 60's GT car than the sim that allows for this is not simulating that car per definition of the word simulation. Unless rf2 has a significant update to the current clutch model the game engine cannot simulate driving a Cobra.
There is a big difference, with rF1 you can "control" every aspect of the tire directly, and make changes quickly (if you have the knowledge). To make a tire in rF2 you need too much info that very little people has, and to take conclusions of several changes you have to wait for hours. That tire model is a masterpiece but realistically way too difficult for modders (unless if you are happy enough doing copy paste from ISI's tires and tweaking few coefficients).
Yep, it's going to take some time for people to catch up on it. At least you can make some decent adjustments in the real time section without rebuilding the lookup table. But hopefully someone can do enough trial and error to get a nice array of tires to share with others. Then you can fine tune a little bit with the realtime section.
Very nice discussion but are you guys aware of that even the rf2 devs need to dumping down, just because of computing power it needs to simulate things in real time ? Even the automotive industry is not able to simulate everything together in real time, partly yes but not as a whole. Stop dreaming your using very complex simulation games atm nothing more. Some parts are more expanded as the other but there is no one simulating car dynamics fully authentically because its not possible but still rf2 is the better one overall.
I wouldn't call a lookup table dumping down. There simply doing the heavy calculations ahead of time so that in realtime all it has to do is reference to precalculated numbers. Clearly there is probably a bunch of calculations that are left out of the compile process too.
You are a coder me has no clue about that, i just read a comment from a ISI dev where he says that some things need to simplyfied for the public engine when they actually where using different methods and tools for their own while testing. I understood it as they where able to simulate more naturally but the computing power wouldn't allow that in real time as a whole to keep the car dynamics fluid enough. I have no doubt they could do better from the point of there knowledge but the current available technics doesn't allow to do so. The other software people talk about is by far more a game as rf ever was imho.
http://imagespaceinc.com/technology/car-models-physics/ "In some cases the computations from our tools are too complicated to be run in real time on current home technology, but the attributes of vehicle dynamics are now fairly well understood, and anything that has a significant real world bearing must be simulated in some manner, even if it is using a simplified model (creating the same results) within retail software. As we go forward, and technology advances, those simplified models can become more and more advanced, and therein lies the benefit of ongoing software development over boxed products."
