A phrase that I heard many years ago while working for a racing team when a tweak to the ride height caused some unexpected side effects was "Oh well its an art not an exact science". Before looking for black and white answers to all questions (like in life itself) it might be worth really thinking about that statement.
“ are rfactor2 physics broken” video
- Thread starter GTClub_wajdi
- Start date
Well I know what that feels like, I am a professional engineer myself but the number of subtle variables that have an effect that you had never even thought of let alone tried to understand can have an unexpected impact even when you are SURE you have done the engineering!
David O'Reilly
Registered
True statement that its part art, part science but some basic principles and basic phenomena are quite clear.
mantasisg
Registered
I am unsure what exactly we are talkign about right now. But in reality it is probably alright to let things "just happen" and going super scientific and digging deep into stuff is not necessary, especially in non academic environment. However, in simulation we have more reason to understand everything in more detail, in case if we talk about wheter something is realistic and not just simply assume it being realistic because we are fans of a simulation.
No I agree with you but I think that having read most of this thread sometimes and this does NOT mean you, there is a tendency to look at a problem where the perceived "reality" is not what is happening in the sim, instantly jumping to the conclusion that the sim is therefore wrong or at fault and then finding that what is perceived to happen in reality is not as simple as it looks and has many more nuances than anyone would have first thought. That's why I always like to see data to prove that something is incorrect or that a similar behaviour CANNOT be replicated in reality. If it can then you have to work out what it is about your understanding of a problem that means that you can't reconcile that with what is happening. I also used to work on flight sim development which has taught me not to dismiss what seems counter intuitive. And that does not mean that I don't think there are any problems but I have an open mind about how real or otherwise some of them are.
Last edited:
mantasisg
Registered
Absolutely, assumptions and weak conclusions does frequently come from both sides. But there is a tendency (in every sim) that only those who criticize are obliged to put effort in proving their point and understanding how everything works. And still it is a norm that no one should ever expect to get an agreement for criticising something in house.
For example I remember one interesting occasion. I might not remember it exactly, as it was long ago. Once a guy pointed his doubts about how durable some tires were in Assetto Corsa, developers and community argued that it was fine. A year or so later Kunos found an issue which was that tire loads were missing out of tire wear code, please note I might be remembering incorrectly as it was long ago.
To me it is amazing how such significant variable was missing, and for years only few guys came up with some doubts about tire wear. And even after that it took significant amount of time before something must have landed, likely some kind of data, which must have convinced devs to look for some possible issue.
This proves the concept that any simulation is basically taken for granted by most people. It doesn't mean that it is unacceptable to have any unrealistic bits, but it means that there is little interest in spotting them. The most unfortunate side of that IMO is that everything in simulation that is achieved with great success is undervalued too. Because if people can't evaluate problems, they can't evaluate achievements too. IMO rF2 suffers most for that. Ironically as this thread is aimed at criticising potentially exsisting issues, there are so much more existing strengths that most of them aren't quite known so much, instead it is widely repeated: "physics very good, FFB so good" and thats just nothing being said, comparign to how good this simulation actually is.
Also it is even greater understatement of rF2 physics when some official cars, or some officially endorsed cars (like Alpine) has some pathetic issues, that are so well known that by now it is more of an assumption to argue that it is fine, than to think that something is wrong. Still people who has more logic on their side has to use most effort to express themselves and get to understand the problems. Naturally people are quiting at some point.
For example I remember one interesting occasion. I might not remember it exactly, as it was long ago. Once a guy pointed his doubts about how durable some tires were in Assetto Corsa, developers and community argued that it was fine. A year or so later Kunos found an issue which was that tire loads were missing out of tire wear code, please note I might be remembering incorrectly as it was long ago.
To me it is amazing how such significant variable was missing, and for years only few guys came up with some doubts about tire wear. And even after that it took significant amount of time before something must have landed, likely some kind of data, which must have convinced devs to look for some possible issue.
This proves the concept that any simulation is basically taken for granted by most people. It doesn't mean that it is unacceptable to have any unrealistic bits, but it means that there is little interest in spotting them. The most unfortunate side of that IMO is that everything in simulation that is achieved with great success is undervalued too. Because if people can't evaluate problems, they can't evaluate achievements too. IMO rF2 suffers most for that. Ironically as this thread is aimed at criticising potentially exsisting issues, there are so much more existing strengths that most of them aren't quite known so much, instead it is widely repeated: "physics very good, FFB so good" and thats just nothing being said, comparign to how good this simulation actually is.
Also it is even greater understatement of rF2 physics when some official cars, or some officially endorsed cars (like Alpine) has some pathetic issues, that are so well known that by now it is more of an assumption to argue that it is fine, than to think that something is wrong. Still people who has more logic on their side has to use most effort to express themselves and get to understand the problems. Naturally people are quiting at some point.
Last edited:
Nieubermesch
Registered
Has anyone tried the GT3 cars? The last BOP supposedly addresses our complaints! That's really exciting, that it paid of. Going to try the cars right now. Didn't read it so well, so I am not sure if it's limited to only GT3 cars or not.
Lazza
Registered
GT3 BOP includes some tweaks to the yaw aero, yes.
I'm not sure what you think "paid off". The aero was talked about long before this thread was started.
Remco Majoor
Registered
Yes, yesterday evening I did some testing with my teammate. Soft suspension isn't necessarily the way to go anymore, and we don't use softest rear arb anymore (although we didn't before the update either)
mantasisg
Registered
I'd say aero changes that have been presented in a blog are hardly related to most of the stuff we have been talked, perhaps more related to the thread where you put up the voting. For example I still haven't seen anything mentioned about tires as ever, but Lazza has suggested that for example updated aero might have an impact reducing excessive tire wear too. Which makes sense, but I doubt it will be big impact on tire wear. Also we don't really know the magnitude of how the yaw sensitivity has been changed, so it is easy to get a degree placebo. Also the mentioned aero tweak will have little impact to skating on low speeds.
I am also the one of those who are "yet to drive", waiting for a new pedals today
I have already set that my benchmark will be previous non-ruined zandvoort with Audi GT3.Nieubermesch
Registered
What I read at RaceDepartment mentioned that but also tweaks about gaining time with excessive sliding... So I am not sure why this wouldn't be helping in push them to work on the issues...
Kelju_K
Registered
"All this aside, we’ve also taken the opportunity to have a look at the behaviour of the cars themselves with this new build, and have used this new update to address both the aerodynamic loss behaviour behind another car, and also the potentially excessive ability to rotate the car by sliding all four tyres through a corner in an exaggerated fashion"
Kelju_K
Registered
James B: post #1107
and
Mantasisg post #1112
imo are the reasons why this thread exists in the first place.
The fact that this issue has gotten S397 attention, and humbled the "engineers" back to drawing board to recheck the engineering, is best news for this game.
Not because of this particular issue.
But in general, it shows that we are listened to. And that burden of absolute proof from the users to point out something, is not absolute.
Good times ahead guys and girls. Good times indeed.
Despite the unfortunate title of this thread, this still shows once again how much knowledge and passion this community packs. it's astonishing! And when the community and studio collaborate, only good things come out of it.
and
Mantasisg post #1112
imo are the reasons why this thread exists in the first place.
The fact that this issue has gotten S397 attention, and humbled the "engineers" back to drawing board to recheck the engineering, is best news for this game.
Not because of this particular issue.
But in general, it shows that we are listened to. And that burden of absolute proof from the users to point out something, is not absolute.
Good times ahead guys and girls. Good times indeed.
Despite the unfortunate title of this thread, this still shows once again how much knowledge and passion this community packs. it's astonishing! And when the community and studio collaborate, only good things come out of it.
Last edited:
Nieubermesch
Registered
davehenrie
Registered
Audi was the first car I also took out too! At 72 Imola. The previous version was prone to biting me after the tires began to warmup. (just a couple of laps) Seemed much more relaxed as I put about 10 laps in before my driving error bit me back.(not the car's fault) The tires front to rear are still about 10c hotter in the rear almost as soon as you start rolling.I'd say aero changes that have been presented in a blog are hardly related to most of the stuff we have been talked, perhaps more related to the thread where you put up the voting. For example I still haven't seen anything mentioned about tires as ever, but Lazza has suggested that for example updated aero might have an impact reducing excessive tire wear too. Which makes sense, but I doubt it will be big impact on tire wear. Also we don't really know the magnitude of how the yaw sensitivity has been changed, so it is easy to get a degree placebo. Also the mentioned aero tweak will have little impact to skating on low speeds.
I am also the one of those who are "yet to drive", waiting for a new pedals today
David O'Reilly
Registered
The quality if the debate here would be greatly enhanced if you did read stuff fully before attributing it's cause.
