Hi, more than 3 years ago there was a discussion about aquaplaning in this thread and it was told that ISI is working on that. It didn't have the highest but also not the lowes priority, it was told. Now, after many years with rFactor I acquired rFactor2. Many people praised the realistic tyre model. But after trying out, I was a little bit disappointed that aquaplaning is still not implemented (at least, I can drive with more than 200km/h with slick tyres without any harm). Question: is anybody still working on that and will this feature come with one of the next releases? Another weird thing is that the gravel beds are very slippery (which is ok), but spinning the tyres in the gravel bed let tyre temperatures raise up to over 200°C. This doesn't seem very realistic to me. What do you think about it? Is this a bug that will be fixed?
No, aquaplaning still isn't done. There is at least a workaround now that produces (configurable) grip loss when the track is 'wet', but no aquaplaning. If it bothers you that much you probably should have asked before buying, but the way it is now is raceable. 'with one of the next releases?' - you could almost put your house on 'no'. That's the safest way to approach most issues, to avoid disappointment. Simulating aquaplaning properly is actually very very complex, and ISI hardly ever does placeholder shortcuts unfortunately, so we'll probably have what we have now for a long while yet - possibly forever in rF2. Similar with stuff like the gravel. The surface properties could probably have something that influences how much tyre heat is generated from friction/grip loss, but I'm not sure we'll see that ever/soon. *I probably seem a lot less positive than I did in this thread; during early rF2 development there were things mentioned that we thought would become part of the game, but I think in hindsight were a kind of wishlist the devs hoped to put in it. Time has proven otherwise, I guess economics always provides a limit, so we're now more in a "well I wouldn't expect it, but hopefully" frame of mind. Development hasn't stopped but its scope has probably been reined in a lot since 3 years ago.
One way I've looked at tire temps rising when off track as looking at a way to induce grip loss due to tire debris pickup. As temps drop again grip returns as would happen as debris clears
Yes, there is no point in going crazy with more sophisticated details when sales are so poor. Why are sales poor? Because there are about 17 of us who care about this level of accuracy. The other 99.9% are busy buying AC, iRacing and AMS (or worse) to get a polished, complete and user-friendly experience that is close enough to accurate to be plausible and fun. rF2 is like science experiment. An exciting one, if you are willing to be a geek to explore it. ISI needs to commercialize the value of what they have already created so they might have some resources to keep going into the future. Of course some of us were saying this three or four years ago (look it up if you need to), but some learn slowly. Unfortunately there is an arm's length list of existing features that need to be properly completed and several not-yet-implemented features that are all far more basic and fundamental than aquaplaning. And with development on rF2 slowed to even less than traditional slow levels, I can't see aquaplaning coming anytime soon.
What you don't have is reflective of what you do have. You can make a game with crap physics but covers very close to all aspects of a real life racing series (hey, there is one! It makes ****loads of money!) and rightly complain that the physics aspect is crap. Most people here don't play that game purely because the physics are crap. To a large degree that's 'all' that's wrong with it, but many people (of a certain type) won't go near it. rF2 does a lot right, but still lacks some things. That's just the reality. From an average user point of view I'd say most wouldn't be too bothered if those gaps were filled by 'simple' solutions that don't represent a proper simulation of those things but in a general sense had the right kind of feel. Like you hit a shallow puddle with slick tyres and you lose all traction, but you hit that same shallow puddle with deep treaded tyres and basically lose no grip because the tread never loses contact with the track. When that shallow puddle has a very similar effect on both slick and deeply treaded tyres, it doesn't match even in a general sense what you'd expect in real life. The fact that rF2 does such a good job with certain aspects of simulation perhaps makes it worse that it does the latter (it doesn't have puddles as such, and that's probably fairly understandable because you could get them wrong easily; but it does do damp and wet track, but lacks water depth in relation to its effect on different tread depths [let alone tyre wear and tread depth, an important consideration in real life if you wear treaded tyres down on a dry track before rain comes along]). If rF2 (or another iteration) in the future covers some of those aspects, surely it's better than what we have now, right? So why not consider those things when judging where it is now? Keep things in context here. The thread is largely about aquaplaning, and rF2 doesn't do aquaplaning except in a very rudimentary manner. Why be illogically positive (or just avoid factual negativity) about this specific area when it has no bearing on the rest of the sim? When people make invalid claims about what rF2 is doing wrong, let's correct it. If someone points out something rF2 doesn't do well, or especially at all, how is that not a valid criticism? Amazing indeed.
What you quote is still not a simple solution. I can't imagine the coding that has to be done to even compute a tyre model (let alone the extra aquaplaning feature). It isn't a case of "if this then that" which some people think most code resembles. If you told a programmer this then they would probably laugh in your face!
I think you missed the context a bit. Doing aquaplaning properly is certainly very difficult, as I said earlier. I do have some idea of these things.
