Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by GTClub_wajdi, Dec 29, 2020.
Did you guys watch this video?
I'm sure at least some have, and there was a fair bit of discussion on discord on various issues.
I'll just say here: a car's physics being unrealistic in certain aspects, doesn't mean it's an issue with rF2 physics as a whole.
Yes, it seems that we will never get away of people talking of certain cars physics as about underlying physics of a sim.
One thing about anti roll bars. When it says it is "Detached" it still might be generating fair amount of antiroll there depending on whats the base value in physics parameters.
That's a good point... but need to be investigated a lot more.
As far as I know judging by the experience of really fast guy and my own... there are underlying physic issues that are present in almost every cars within rf2...
But, of course, either it an engine issue or not need to be investigated before even considering a big change... having said that the overall sentiment within the top 100 guys cleared tend to suggest that it is really needed... and even way overdue.
Either way the 'discussion' need to happen... between the community and the devs.
PS: A quote form Risto Kappet just to illustrate: "...Issue is the physics, the physics need to be prioritized over everything else, to cure the fact that extreme slip angles gain you laptime so easily, or don't penalize you quickly enough. Almost identical behaviour on almost every rF2 car."
...of course the opposite side is not only welcome but very much needed to make the best synthesis possible on the subject, during the coming months.
Except for the apparently weird vehicle (Callaway GT3), I think the underlying problem is that the rFactor 2 tire model is more tolerant of slides than other sims.
To improve this
1, Get tire structure and material data from a tire manufacturer (eg Michelin) to improve tire reproducibility.
2, Improve the accuracy of "real-time" parameters that control contact patches.
I think it's all about these two points.
@Kahel any such discussions need to be based on measurable facts.
are saying basically nothing concrete. How much of an issue? Which cars? "Most" doesn't cut it. Have a list, show the issue with data, have some real reference to compare to, and let people check all the listed cars.
Sweeping statements prove nothing and tarnish the whole game.
I shut it off after the first 3 minutes. If the bloke wanted to tell us his life story he should put that in the heading. If he had a valid point he should gotten straight to the point.
It doesn't help to use a mod with very limited tuning and encrypted files to validate key elements like suspension geometry and tires. I don't care where the mod comes from without access to those bits its tough to validate any claims about physics.
long story short, he went 1:59 to 1:57 without really trying except for some setup changes....So I loaded his hacked setup and .... well... I never got close to his times. Braking, even with a load cell, I can't seem to whoa the car like other folks.
I saw this guy as a sincere YouTuber, for some time now I see him more as an influencer.
I unsubscribed from his channel.
On the other hand, I also think (quote from Risto Kappet in the message above) that improving physics should be the priority (S397 must establish priorities ...). Frankly for 4 years, from this point of view, I am quite disappointed.
But no one on this forum seems really worried about it.
Maybe because physics "exploits" need two factors to be an issue: 1 that they are there, 2 that you are willing to use them.
I'm not going to gain 1 second driving in an unrealistic way. Ever.
Honestly, no. You just can't keep asking for the same things over and over and over again, and after 7-8 years you tend to stop. The fact we don't keep banging on about it doesn't mean we don't care.
But again I have to ask - what exactly do you want improved? I'm not saying there isn't anything to improve, but it worries me a little that people see or hear about some things being a bit off (like GT physics) and then just have a "the physics is wrong, needs updating" viewpoint.
The tyre model is extremely good, but the results depend on the tyre being modeled and the tyre parameters. I haven't seen anything to suggest the base model needs any improving - bearing in mind that would, again, require some very specific analysis showing an issue.
So please - be specific!
*and thanks @John R Denman - I hadn't sat down and watched the video yet, and was worried it would be a bit of a rambling mess with some anecdotal 'evidence' and probably dodgy conclusions, so you saved me going through the pain
The video is: "Look! if I try harder and tweaking base setup I can go fasterrrrrrrrrrrr" . The fact that he can trash the front tires understeering is a plus, but just because he have not to pay the 40 tires he would need to drive 10 laps like that. I hope the tire degradation/damages will be improved someday, but looks like a lot of effort just to remove an exploit that some driver are willing to use... but surely simulation depth will be enhanced.
You contradict yourself at this. You suggested that it is something about tire model. And then secondly you suggest improving parametrisation of tires.
I myself have been working and getting further with rf2 tire physics. Real time parameters, no ttool work. I have good control of the tires there, and keep getting more. You can make a tire to be very similar like iRacing if you want. Or a total Arcade too. I once was accused by one modding team for doing "iracing tire".
There are great differences of being alert when going very very fast between sharp tire, and blunt tire.
I personally think there are issues of minimum possible tire stiffness in rf2. But like Lazza says, we have to be very specific. What if it is also configurable. I wonder how many people fully understand working with ttool.
What a shame Ermin went so far offroad without giving any objective data to base his point on.
Now excuse me for going a little bit offtopic, but I´d like to know what is you guy´s opinion in Daniel Juncadella´s view on rF2´s handling. He stated that the perfect point would be between rF2´s "forgiveness" and iRacing´s death without previous warning. I disagree, real life cars are very forgiving, all you loose is time and tire.
This mean that I'm really a dog driving... I lose control in RF2 . Maybe he call forgiveness the fact that you can follow more than 1 line through the track.. and survive. My little experience with IRacing, was that if you make a little mistake on this matter on corner entry, you'd better prepare to go wide, because there is nothing you can do to save it differently most of the time. Iracing give me the impression that there is a sort of "god" looking at you and deciding at every input if you must be punished or awarded, no matter how much you beg , if he decide you can't make that turn that way, you simply won't.
Aren't there unrealistic setup "exploits" in almost any sim ?
Why multiplayer competitions do not force a fixed setup ?
Exactly, but you know, Daniel besides a great real life driver is an iRacing fan, so he might be biased.
rF2 is a bit much more forgiving though. There should be a moment where there is no return. In rF2 you can go pretty far and still catch it. I don't think I've ever really gone over the limit, spin and go backwards. I've most off the time countersteered, and having it straighten up eventually. In the FE car you notice this the most. IRL you see them spin, in rF2 you can drift them around the hairpins, and you even have to to to be competitive in qualy. There should be a point of no return, which I haven't ever really felt in rF2, aside from the one time I went and took the dissenter on lost valley with rain tires slapped on.
Same here. His interview with Marcel was very good. His channel felt really genuine at the beginning but it turned into something else as he obviously wants to build a YouTube career. Gotta go with what's popular and that's now ACC, after a period of praising AMS2 and rF2 that he now semi-hates. Also now emphasing on simracing drama with strong "expert" opinions not always exactly nuanced. That get views I guess.
That's not to say the topic of that particular video is not worth addressing, but that's just the tone and "know-it-all" attitude that is irritating (especially the end), let alone unmentioned stuff for these tests (track using the same rubber between runs or not ?). And apparently other sims do not have setup exploits...
To be honest Lazza, I don't want to be more specific, because that's not my role as a simple user.
Indeed, I am neither a physical modder, nor a mechanic, nor a mechanical engineer, nor a tire specialist.
Just an enthusiast.
I do have a number of ideas on what should be improved, but that's not for me to define, but in S397.
I just note that :
1) Physics have evolved in a notable way with regard to the tire model and with regard to the modding quality of the official cars.
2) That for years rF2 had a very big lead over the competition in terms of physics engine (AC ........), but that this is NO LONGER the case (Assetto Compet '....).
I consider that rF2 should not continue to be caught up and should correct these enormous lacks/faults (eg: transmission).
I don't understand that so many people write walls of text to talk about graphics or UI, almost never talking about physics, EXPLICITLY asking S397 to improve the simulation on its main aspect (realism).
But dear friends, the less rF2 users will come forward to ask for an improvement in the physics engine...........................................................The less they will, it's as easy as that.
Separate names with a comma.