Hmm I noticed something at zandv yesterday. The track was around 40~70 wetness.. {i take that line and off line wetness on the lcd?} Anyway the ai were able to go faster on slicks than me on wets. Regarding the aquaplaning I really hope they don't do it like pc2. Although felt OK for player ai mostly drive thru them unaffected. Acc do it slightly better imo, have great races with ai in that recently and the changing weather I'm hoping for random weather and better puddle physics.
You mean puddle physics ? Because it can't be better as there are none yet, as well as it can't be worse lol I think ACC has softened their H2O game, tried to balance game/simulation. But I should launch it again before talking seriously, been a while since I properly played it. In First build the nurburgring felt awesome. There were some proper aquaplaning going on at many places, despite the track not having that many puddles, also devs has said that they had a discussion if Nurburgring should be the first track to release as it has less puddles, so was not the best one to showcase rain. In first release you could hit aquaplaning on the: inside of the main straight, in the middle of RTL, in the middle of the kink between T7 and T9 (had to be really aware of that one), then there was also aquaplaning at the exit of T13. I adored first build so much, that it got me a ban lol. In the second release of ACC all puddles felt reduced in effect, but one has been added at between T3 and T4, that felt like in project cars 2 (felt more like hitting viscous sand than puddle, and upset car massively even at such low speed), also a massive puddle was added to braking area for T11, which felt like proper puddle. Overall felt like regress in my personal opinion and I lost interest in following the development closely. Also ACC is supposed to simulate viscous hydroplaning as well, misleadingly known as wet rubber effect, but I am not sure if it is in the simulation already, and how the management has gone about it, because it is obviously such an anti game feature, as zero gamers will ever know that you should expect to change racing line in the wet, let alone understand why... ok sorry for rant. My fear is that it could possibly happen in rF2 too, but this place seems to be so much more safe and trustworthy. Anyway now ACC is still a leader in rain simulation, and the fact that it may not be as good now as it was in first release (my personal opinion) still does not deny that it can be very good. P.S. someone at a time of first ACC release thought of a challenge of hotlap with slicks around Nurburgring with worst possible rain setting. Sadly just a few guys picked up to try it, I thought it was a bit of something different and fun... It was very interesting experience. Couldn't do sub 3minutes lap, though came close (my PB in dry was 1'54 just for feel of magnitude of pace difference, also same severe conditions with proper tires were about 2'16). With slicks in such insane conditions you could hardly go over 100km/h, car feels like it is about to be game over every moment, could top about 140km/h in the straights before car would completely loose friction, which goes away temporarily before permanently going to ~zero. A picture for a reference.
Sorry, crossed wires on that one. Lagg was (I think) suggesting it was physics rather than graphics, I pointed out it's graphics rather than physics but presumably there's a plan to link back to physics in the future. When you asked about 'how it works' I thought you meant the current system, not the future physics. Indeed, they resize it to 8k. At that point for me mapping becomes a black art, I don't get how that image is then actually applied to the track. Is it possible to use multiple for very large tracks? That example throws the image over the top of the entire layout, depending on details you probably wouldn't want less than 8k for normal circuits, but for very large ones I doubt even that would suffice.
Can someone confirm this information. Since English is not my native language, I'm not sure that's what was said, at simexpo or at any given time. Thank you.
There was a bit of a discussion on discord back in February last year, a couple of months after puddle maps were introduced, copy and paste of what was said below; XenoYparxi01/02/2018 Looks great Also, any news on physical puddles? >_> Marrs01/02/2018 no, realroad already features dynamic water depth for all parts of the track, which we actually use as the basis for rendering these puddles too, so the main point of the graphics update was to catch up with what the physics were already doing... that does not mean we'll never consider something like aquaplaning, or creating slightly different sound effects based on puddles/water depth but it's certainly not the case that these graphics improvements are just that, they are based on our realroad model of the track conditions Goanna01/02/2018 @Marrs in my real car if I'm zipping down the highway at 100kph and I hit a deep puddle with say my front left wheel there is a definite "pull" to the left, will we see that sort of behaviour in rF2? Marrs01/02/2018 @Goanna that could be a possible aqua planing related update, but we would definitely want to base that on real physics and not just detect "oh you're hitting this puddle, let's jank the wheel a bit to one side"
Hmmm... so why do they need to be painted as a texture ? Even if there is no aquaplaning those places should feel different in grip, which doesn't seem to be happening. Also - wishful thinking - take way much more time to dry out. What was said can be understood like the physical puddles were always there, but they were not visible. It makes no sense. P.S. interesting subject about pulling when aquaplaning. It is interesting because there is definitely way more to it than just primitive effect as Marcel said. For example as much as I had aquaplaning irl, pulling has always felt minimal, or wasn't even happening. I guess it would be mainly resistance due to forming wave in front of the tire, I suppose several factors would result size of it and build up time. By the way, did you know that due to loss of friction tire stops rotating if it is aquaplaning long enough. I guess I did experience little or no pulling effects those times when I experienced aquaplaning because I just let the car completely free, no steering, no acceleration, no braking, just waiting till the aquaplaning will end. Also good enough tires with proper pressure that channels water well enough, probably also could reduce the resistance and, of course the severity of aquaplaning. Also it is interesting considering that tire could see puddle as a bump the moment it gets lifted by the hydrostatic pressure and have some sort of bumpsteer maybe ? Or perhaps hydrostatic pressure would form uniformly under the tire, lifting only one side, and creating some sort of kerb effect ? That would make great sense if tire is much more worn on the inside for example. Well... it is interesting to think about. Would be interesting to find some studies about that.
