I wonder how some people get into such conclusions? Physic in this game is clearly broken and it's a fact -> study, temperatures, being faster (or not slower) with drifting. What was (maybe) debunked is advantage of exploiting the broken physics.
“ are rfactor2 physics broken” video
- Thread starter GTClub_wajdi
- Start date
I wonder how some people get into such conclusions? Physic in this game is clearly broken and it's a fact -> study, temperatures, being faster (or not slower) with drifting. What was (maybe) debunked is advantage of exploiting the broken physics.
Mitch9
Registered
ermin´s video was making two points, iirc; physics are broken and you can gain an unfair advantage by exploiting its flaws
I don´t think anybody is arguing that physics aren´t flawed in rf2, the question is how (core physics? implementation? global or just some cars? i saw some graphs on the c8r brakes, i believe, were the temperature dropoff was doing some weird things after release of the brakes...).
On the other hand, people watch ermin´s video and seem to assume it´s all about the setup...
Don´t really know how throwing players of all skill levels together and comparing those who know about physics exploits vs those who don´t makes sense... besides, half the battle is knowing how to drive the car with a given setup.
A good example would be the recent FE hotlap competition, I´m sure it´s been pointed out here before that the fastest lap was done in a "clean" way, no rf2 dorifto
Anecdotally, I can tell you every time I try one of Remco´s setups I´m consistently one second slower than with my pleb setup
cristianuk
Registered
regards rubber laid on track sometimes there is no diffrence in lap times between practice and qualifyng in the F1 official lap times and fuel loads are unkown and what ever the teams tried in those sesions, the only thing left to do is to ask the teams for the data, only them and tire manufactures have such information
mantasisg
Registered
The "exploit" subject was working against discussion the whole time. It is not it. Even calling those things an "exploits" aren't accurate. It should simply be realism question. @Pawel44 I am afraid we have no conclusions regarding realism, just as expected.
I'd like to offer one conclusion:
Unfortunately all simulations has religious element to it. People trust, believe and assume things being true differently. Usually with lack of logic and evidence. In some extreme cases disregarding logic and evidence completely and being totally based on faith. Those who has opposing and criticizing ideas should not assume being surely correct either, and must try hard to improve arguments, however it can become pointless even if being correct. Going against stream is difficult, seeking for truth is difficult, it requires understanding how things work and has to match with observations, must fit with other known things. At some point you may reach some discoveries, supposedly develop helpful and useful knowledge, feel good about it till sharing... just to find out that no one is interested, or is mean about it. It is much easier just to float downstream and let things happen like they are, which depends on simulation Gods - those people with crazy programming skills and physics knowledge combined. Or less godly guys who just builds particular cars physics, for which they don't need to code.
I'd like to offer one conclusion:
Unfortunately all simulations has religious element to it. People trust, believe and assume things being true differently. Usually with lack of logic and evidence. In some extreme cases disregarding logic and evidence completely and being totally based on faith. Those who has opposing and criticizing ideas should not assume being surely correct either, and must try hard to improve arguments, however it can become pointless even if being correct. Going against stream is difficult, seeking for truth is difficult, it requires understanding how things work and has to match with observations, must fit with other known things. At some point you may reach some discoveries, supposedly develop helpful and useful knowledge, feel good about it till sharing... just to find out that no one is interested, or is mean about it. It is much easier just to float downstream and let things happen like they are, which depends on simulation Gods - those people with crazy programming skills and physics knowledge combined. Or less godly guys who just builds particular cars physics, for which they don't need to code.
Last edited:
FAlonso
Registered
I think this has a lot to do with the pressure error.
green serpent
Registered
Drifting around corners no, but SLIDING around corners to a degree is faster. So rF2 does have that correct, a bit of sliding through corners is faster in the sim as it is in real life.
I have done many tests where I have hot lapped with a lot of slip angle (relatively speaking for a racing car) compared to only a little bit (hard to tell with the naked eye but still a bit sliding through the corner). The laps with less slip angle but still slightly sliding are always a bit faster than the laps with more slip angle.
It would be interesting to set up some kind of objective test to see which cornering method is faster, for example a fairly constant radius corner and just hammer it through hundreds of times. I would expect to see that sliding through the corner yet keeping the tires within a fairly narrow slip angle would be the fastest. People think of fastest slip angle (lets say on the front tyre) is 6 degrees only in postive lock, well imo opinon if you get a bit of oversteer and the back very slightly comes around and you apply some counter steer or small amount of opposite lock and you still maintain 6 degrees of slip angle at the front (relative to the road surface), that is still fast.
What I am trying to say is that maybe some are judging slip angle relative to the car body, wheras they should be judging it relative to the road surface. If the car is sliding through the corner but the front and rear tires are keeping within a narrow slip angle and maintaining their line (not relative to the car body but relative to the road), that is still fast. To put it a different way, you can apply countersteer through a corner (and if done well) the position of the front tire has NOT MOVED at all REALITIVE to the road surface. The tyre has maintained a proper smooth line at eg 6degree slip angle. It is only the car body that has moved. The the tyre stays in the same position relative to the reference frame of 3d space. That would still be a fast corner even though the car would be sliding. Hope that makes sense.
David O'Reilly
Registered
An interesting and thoughtful post.
BUT "since we know it's a simulation and not real life doesn't that mean we already took the red pill". -Morpheus.
Last edited:
David O'Reilly
Registered
Be wary of accusing "you guys" of lacking your insight (or common sense).
Technically the more rubber down the less detaching the rear ARB will help you (the claimed hack in the OP video).
The reason is that as track grip increases with rubber the rear end benefits from that change more than the front#, so the car moves to understeer anyway.
So what's more important in any comparison of setups is a static realroad.
#The same is true in reverse, when it gets wet it's the rear that loses more grip.
David O'Reilly
Registered
It makes sense to me as when counter-steering you are essentially pointing the front wheels at the direction where the centre of the vehicle is travelling. So front tyre slip angle is less when counter-steering than when in a 4 wheel drift. IE more at the back and less at the front.
So maybe front and rear slip angles will average a constant number to be on a given line?
How much the chassis will/should be rotated off the driving line would seem anecdotally (from observing dirt track oval racing and rally (on say snow and ice) where counter-steering is continual and massive) seems to be grip related.
In a low grip environment the rear tyres are doing a lot more work to try to power the car to the apex, whereas in high grip environment the rears can spend more energy powering forwards.
On tarmac this hurts tyre degradation in both heat and friction. This is modelled effectively in RF2. I did a test and made a thread here called "Does RF2 punish us enough for sliding the car"
Last edited:
Yzangard
Registered
Wow, exactly how I see it too...
cristianuk
Registered
can you name how many racing titles actually simulate tire flex and contact patch(not visually)
Lazza
Registered
I don't know if I'm missing a recent theme here, but the thread generally isn't about "is rF2 the best", but "is rF2 correct". Admittedly much of it has strayed from actually discussing that in a clear way and instead descended into various claims and arguments which haven't led anywhere.
cristianuk
Registered
well they call rf2 broken what about the others, how broke can they be if they cant simulate a tire movemant like in reall life? because people come in here and dismiss rf2 realism because of the tire pressure thing and some other things which are not modeled yet, look above hes just comparing with AC
mantasisg
Registered
That is partially true in the context of the movie and that science fiction simulation theory. But assuming that something is correct works similarly as mistaking/blending reality with simulation. To put it as simply as possible - being incorrect and having false assumptions is little different from being right if you don't know that you are incorrect, even more so if you don't even consider a possibility of your truth being a false.
The simulation could also be metaphorical figure. I think it would be fair to say that in reality the simulation could stand for something that is made up. For that sense religion and laws IRL are also some forms of simulation. In general they creates sets of rules that should make things work like they should, but we know that sometimes it gets screwed up and turns into a seek of control, power, money and can cause destruction.
Staying humble is the best option, but also we need to stand up for our ideas respectfully. History also shows that truth slowly prevails over false (assuming so because we definitely live better than we would 200 years ago, and we made tremendous achievements). But in terms of cars and driving simulation, I'd say it is possible that they will not exist IRL long enough for these things to get sorted out, it will just loose relevance sooner than solid level of common sense could develop on quickly changing everyday life. And it is slightly madly sad to think that simulation might not capture reality of motorsport better than it already did, and this is how it will last forever and gets stored as form of document for people in year 2500 to have slight reference on how the cars were back then when they still had contact with ground and there still were liquid fuels available and legal.
Is that really so ? Never though about it, it is interesting. Does that depend on car, weight distribution, aero distribution ? Why would rear end benefit more than front and not proportionally from increase of surface friction ? Technically it is possible if rear tires TGM has set higher groove multipliers. Maybe it does happen so with some cars and they changes balance in rF2 due to different real road saturation level, I don't know. But why would they ? Different compound at rear benefiting proportionally more from increased adhesion ?
David O'Reilly
Registered
From my observations it holds true in all cars I've driven simulated and real.
When you look at RWD cars the rear tyres are almost always wider, they are tasked with cornering and stopping the car but also with propelling the car. So to achieve an equilibrium in cornering grip they have to have surplus grip compared to the front to deal with the propulsion requirements.
So if say for example front grip is 80 mystical units, rear grip might be 100 mystical units.
With a given % increase or decrease in total grip the grip change at the rear is greater.
This is part* of the reason that in wet conditions ARB and damper changes are made to reduce (surplus ) front grip and increase rear grip.
*The other reason is that weight transfer fwds under brakes is lower so the fronts just have less to do.
Lazza
Registered
No, they're not dismissing 'rF2 realism', they're talking about whether it's lacking some characteristics that are present in real life.
You came in here 2 pages ago and talked like people were stupid for not thinking about the amount of rubber, I think because you don't understand this isn't about alien laptimes and people using extra rubber to do it - it's about tyre and car handling and how accurate it is in some circumstances. But because you didn't really state what you were saying properly, people asked you whether you thought the rubber level affected the handling - and again you just talk about laptimes, and seem to suggest rubber has too much effect on laptimes (and talk about F1, with demonstrably incorrect claims about nearly static laptimes and lack of track evolution).
I don't like the comparisons between games at all, but at least 'he' (and I assume you mean @FAlonso , you should really quote or reference someone if you're going to reference what they're saying) is talking about an actual issue and not just going for a blanket "this other game is better in all ways" statement or simply going down an entirely different path to the rest of the thread.
(I wasn't sure how to take @FAlonso 's post myself, because he quoted a post talking about the lack of track temperature variation with a video showing the same lack of track temperature variation... and I think there isn't such a direct link between that and the apparent lack of effect of low pressures on tyre temperature as has been stated a couple of times, but that's by-the-by...)
"Others are worse" isn't a defense for missing features. Also, all that really matters is how the cars handle - you can't assume that just because rF2 uses a physical model it will inherently have better (more realistic) handling than something using an empirical model. When it comes to this obvious-to-the-user stuff (like wet racing lines, pressure effects, punctures) the lack of them leaves a bigger hole than superior core physics can fill.
Analysis and theory aside, this is a pretty widely known phenomenon - in real and sim racing.
Last edited:
It seems you have no clue about this discussion. Physical tires can produce completely broken output while 'simpler' tires can produce more realistic output and vice versa. It's quite interesting topic and I don't want it to become polluted by clueless fanboys.
cristianuk
Registered
yes Pawell44 simple tires can re-produce real forces something like tire flex and slip patch and so on
mantasisg
Registered
Nope, something still not alligning about this. In my mind the dry surface grip levels should not affect the grip balance of a car, I think grip should change proportionally, unless there would be some exact differences in tires rubber compounds and treads. In wet the balance definitely can change because wider tires has more challenge to remove water, as much as I know.
Thats interesting. I never heard about, so it is weird if its widely known. I might have missed it. Perhaps by a chance there are any additional real life references to this phenomenon ?
Could it also be down to perception ? Oversteer is usually much stronger sensation than understeer, true ? So when grip increases reduced oversteer feels more than proportionally reduced understeer ?
Driving style perhaps could be a factor too. So if driver has a tendency to overuse throttle at mid-to-exit before straightening out the car, but never use too much steering input. So in such case driver is always underperforming his front slip angles, and always overperforming rear slip ratios. In such case it makes sense that with increase of grip more improvement would be perceived at rear than at front.
Thats interesting. I never heard about, so it is weird if its widely known. I might have missed it. Perhaps by a chance there are any additional real life references to this phenomenon ?
Could it also be down to perception ? Oversteer is usually much stronger sensation than understeer, true ? So when grip increases reduced oversteer feels more than proportionally reduced understeer ?
Driving style perhaps could be a factor too. So if driver has a tendency to overuse throttle at mid-to-exit before straightening out the car, but never use too much steering input. So in such case driver is always underperforming his front slip angles, and always overperforming rear slip ratios. In such case it makes sense that with increase of grip more improvement would be perceived at rear than at front.