Vehicle mass

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Slip_Angel, Aug 4, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Lazza

    Lazza Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,345
    Likes Received:
    6,572
    That's not what I'm saying.
     
  2. Slip_Angel

    Slip_Angel Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2019
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    297
    No need for further discussion on this topic.Devs fixed it because they saw a problem NOT because of this thread BUT this also means i ALSO noticed something was off regarding
    weight and inertia and it got fixed.
    was i 100% right? NO but i was close enough to the issue and it is good for me(just with my gut feeling),You are free to believe whatever you want.
     
  3. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    So have you driven it yet ? Perhaps you'd like to send them message that it was not enough, just in case ? Or perhaps placebo will work on you, who knows.

    Who can point out how much actually the mass has changed ? And why such basic parameter was wrong ? I would suppose it probably changed in small amount. But of course Slip Angel could feel it very well :D
     
  4. mr.Sw1tchblade

    mr.Sw1tchblade Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    221
    Rf2 again almost rfpro? Lol

    But AVs are complex, you can’t simulate an autonomous vehicle, with reasonable correlation to the real world on one computer. So rFpro can also scale each experiment across multiple CPUs, and multiple GPUs, to match the complexity of the real vehicle under test.
    http://www.rfpro.com/virtual-test/dlad-deep-learning-autonomous-driving/

    Should i insert rf2 system requirements here?
     
  5. Lazza

    Lazza Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,345
    Likes Received:
    6,572
    Okay, I always try to reply to a post, not the person. I'm not always successful, but I aim to keep things on topic and ignore any discussions I've had elsewhere (if I can remember them) with a person when replying one of their posts.

    But since this is your thread, and you've chosen to make this personal, let me recap a few things:

    You started a thread about tyre behaviour, describing what you felt was unnatural behaviour, but based on some assumptions (like rearward aero balance) and a simplistic view of the situation (like a very strong opinion of what the car shouldn't do at a given speed). I pointed out some of the things you perhaps hadn't considered, and which make it difficult to tell exactly how things should be, and whether it's correct. You then replied comparing rF2 to ACC where you thought ACC was more what you would expect. You then never answered some basic questions, like what sort of laptimes you were doing, from others who were trying to help understand what was going on.

    Then you started this thread asking an impossible to answer question: which sim has the best physics for <car x>. When people pointed out the futility of such a question, and then responded to your 'doubts about the rF2 version' apparently based on some observations, you stopped posting.

    You started the thread we're currently in, about some cars in rF2 that feel like they have 'very little mass', and asking about polar moment of inertia that you'd 'read about somewhere'. (Polar moment of inertia, by the way, is about a body twisting; rF2 has flexible chassis capability, configured per vehicle, so definitely not fixed 'as you'd read somewhere'. But nothing you described about vehicle behaviour would be related to that anyway.) You continued to talk about things not feeling right and I pointed out what you feel isn't a very good indicator of anything (not just you, anyone).

    For bonus points you posted in a thread saying "the only thing i care in sim is how realistic the car feels". Just keep that in mind for later.

    You started a thread asking about aero parameters in rF2, I gave you some info on where to find them. In this thread you said "calling it RF2 a game should be a crime" which is never a good sign - people arguing about what's a sim and what's a game are missing the point and getting caught up in petty arguments. But hey, it was your thread, I left it.

    You posted about something you didn't know was true or not, regarding a choice between graphics and physics in sims. I said, quite simply, no. Because you were mistaken. And that's fine.

    Now a post regarding tyre updates for the FISI 2012, because "these old tyres are broken". Based on what, I ask myself, because nothing above suggested you had any expert knowledge on the matter.

    So then you started your thread about tyres. In the OP alone you said tyres don't heat up right, but still handle ok 'probably because the devs used some cheap trick' (hey, attack the devs! Because you're probably right! Why not?!), the front tyres heat up more than the rear all the time, and then said the cars were unrealistic because they have a stiff rear end unlike real life (I pointed out that era of F1 cars had a different rear arrangement, so you weren't seeing a stiffer rear end at all). You then said the 'new tyre model is still not that good either' going back to talk about understeer, which apparently isn't as punishing as it is in real life. This must be your keen observational skills again, because in an earlier thread you said you aren't as wealthy or lucky as some of us and can't even buy a budget family car (your words, you have edited the post recently but I think it's barely changed). After you posted some further info I answered your post in parts, in detail, and you never responded directly to any of that post. I pointed out numerous things, in that post and later ones, that could explain things you were experiencing. As with some earlier posts you were simplifying (or just misinterpreting) the situation and expecting to come up with an answer. I even said I'm not saying something is right or wrong. Finally you posted a couple of times suggesting you couldn't properly feel where understeer would be occurring with your wheel, and then that the temperatures you thought you were high were probably actually just the upper end of the tyres' working range. On one hand I guess we should congratulate you for finding the answer (for you), but you're so quick to jump to a conclusion and call things out as wrong that it's difficult to stay on your side.

    Then, we get to the BoP with the Oreca, where you didn't like them lowering the power. With a questioning post we establish that you don't know how much power it has, whether it has too much and actually should be lowered, then you say again (remember earlier?) that you want realistic speed - but you want the factory spec rather than the BoP, despite the fact the car we have in rF2 is the BoP version. And then after some criticism about not wanting a (potentially accurate) reduction in power, you said something about seeing many people say the car is faster than in real life, but you never said it. I'm still not sure how that possibly relates to not wanting the car's power dropped, realistically or not.

    Just to top it off, now that changes have been made to the Oreca which resemble words you were talking about (though on a very different scale), you posted in two threads that your speculations were 'proved correct' by the changes, in a wonderful example of self-congratulatory back slapping. And in this thread you think that proves you were feeling something that was wrong, again simplifying the issue.


    Now, sorry to go into so much detail, but what you've had here is a LOT of strong opinions, and a willingness to state them. In all of these discussions not once have I said the game is correct, and you're wrong. Not once. I pointed out things you may not have considered, and I let you know if you were talking about things that made no sense or weren't relevant (like polar moment of inertia), and I did point out if you said something that wasn't factual (like the FISI being stiffer at the rear end), but not even one single time did I say that the behaviour you're seeing in the game is correct, and the fact you think it's wrong shows that you're wrong. I did say a couple of times you might be mistaken, but that's a very different thing.

    And then you say to me, "It is a perfect sim with no issues at all,happy now ?" like I'm some fanboy? Are you serious? In all of the above did you really think I was just defending the game? Did you read anything I said?

    The worst part is I don't even think it's your opinion; you only said it after LokiD made a similar comment (also unjustified, and missing the point).
     
  6. Slip_Angel

    Slip_Angel Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2019
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    297
    okay
     
  7. Slip_Angel

    Slip_Angel Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2019
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    297
    I think there has been a mistake this thread wasn't about autonomous vehicles.
     
    mr.Sw1tchblade likes this.
  8. Slip_Angel

    Slip_Angel Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2019
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    297
    Better than being completely wrong or clueless plus you are making it worse by defending your mistake by sarcasm.
     
  9. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    Well, I do think that you are completely clueless, and also quite immature.

    First of all, you have to understand that there is a difference of actuall core simulation - formulas, code and so on... and simple parameters of particular content. Also it is relative as you don't know the size of changes, you could be right about something, but it also could be coincidence, because frankly you don't sound too intelligent or having proper physics foundation at all.

    I would also like you to point out where was my mistake, which you say that I am defending.
     
  10. LokiD

    LokiD Registered

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Guys play times over. Back to class eh.

    Ffs let it be

    I wouldnt listen to anyone on here unless their a dev with inside physics and tyres knowledge, as most of these are just guesses at best. How the hell does anyone think they know what s397 do to the tyres etc.
     
  11. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    Pls.... it is business now. We as community are not going to be stomped by childish nonsense.
     
  12. LokiD

    LokiD Registered

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Unless your a dev I would ignore the lot of you..
     
  13. LokiD

    LokiD Registered

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Now I know why devs rather communicate on discord than the forums.

    I mean the lengths Lazza has gone to to prove another rf2 user wrong is beyond pathetic get a life ffs.
    Everything wrong with sim racing just haopened in this thread
     
  14. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    Why did you make two pointles posts in a row when you could have made one single pointles post with the same information ? :D it is not a discord. And perhaps some of us really should ignore each other ;) It is the last option IMO, usually it is best to discuss things out in mature way, but if we can't get mature and rational, then this is what is left to do.

    And I think some devs visits discord more, because they probably just use it for their personal teamwork communication, and it is just convenient.

    But it is full of food talk too, and it is also rare that proper physics talk happens, or even talk about actual cars, you know like cars enthusiasts should.

    I actuall like when people care about physics, but I guess it is not the whole picture, as you also are responsible to keep the topic pure and as rational as possible, because false does not exist in natural physics. In simulation it is impossible to know everything perfectly, but when in discussions people starts claiming stuff that they have no idea about, then it is just simply getting more complicated.
     
  15. Slip_Angel

    Slip_Angel Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2019
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    297
    Looks like i have hurt egos of RF2 defender army.
    First i make post about how car feels light and when trail braking the inertia doesn't let the car slide hence it stops quickly.These complains were about oreca as you can see my comment that i was disappointed with how oreca feels.
    Now what did devs fixed?
    *made the car BIT HEAVIER
    *FIXED ENGINE INERTIA
    how much clear it has to be to you fanboys now ?
    These are literally the things i mentioned in my previous comments so go read them again and again till all of you defending army understand.
    Butthurt egoistic people and now that i was correct all along your ego can't accept that LMAO.
    Let this thread end now i got what i wanted from devs themselves while all of you smart arse THOUGHT that nothing was wrong with car.
     
  16. Bernd

    Bernd Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    755
    The change of the cars mass should have changed it's inertia also.
    But Engine Inertia is something completely different.
    Engine Inertia is related to the rotating parts of an engine, like crankshaft, camshaft(s) and such.
     
  17. Lazza

    Lazza Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,345
    Likes Received:
    6,572
    For the 106th time, I never said that. Stop it.
     
  18. Lazza

    Lazza Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,345
    Likes Received:
    6,572
    You don't get it. I didn't prove him wrong with anything (except what I outlined in my overly long post). Actually all I pointed out is how he misrepresented what I'm saying, as you're both still doing. Why did you say people think nothing is wrong with rF2? You know no one claimed that?

    You come along and talk about people other than the devs don't know what's right or wrong, but you're on the side of the guy coming in and saying the game is wrong? Then I talk about how he can't know, and I'm the fanboy? What the hell?
     
  19. Will Mazeo

    Will Mazeo Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    Especially because 100% of the player base that owns the DLC have been reporting issues with this car since the release day lol :D
     
  20. Daniele Vidimari

    Daniele Vidimari Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    593
    There was no need of you to know the Oreca was faster than the real one, there are 1000 posts from 1000 different guys in this forum about it. But still, the changes they made has nothing to do with what you said, they only slowed down the car in order to create a gap between it and the upcoming Senna GTR. I'm not sure about this but it might be slower then a current lmp2 to represent the future lmp2 class, which will be slower than today (to build a good gap between them and HyperCars).
     

Share This Page