Cheers , but I don’t hold out much hope for it & don’t need to with rfactor2 goodness I was very disappointed with AC It’s the sim I really wanted to be great but wasn’t that good If people here on the forums say the physics/ffb are actually good then I’d consider giving it a try in the meantime I don’t really have much interest Bet they’ll still be no damage
If i remember correctly, Stefano said otherwise at an interview with Paul (RD) but we'll have to wait and see
The FAQ says "(almost) scratch." Which should actually be reassuring if anything - if someone spends years making a sim, then started from absolute zero (instead of improving what they already have, physics-wise) you'd have good reason to question their initial approach, and ask why the new one should be any better. But overall, and in the context of explaining why it will be so narrow compared to AC, I think it's fair to say that the physics evolution and putting it on top of an entirely new (for them) graphics engine is very close to a completely new project in scale, especially given the timing requirement.
Because of the experience they already have with the previous sim implementation. They already know where they may have come short in terms of architecture and design and where they can do things better. I can see the experience in develop AC as extremely valuable, and the opportunity to rebuild parts that they now can do better is a fantastic one. My only concern would be the "lack" familiartiy with UE4, but I believe with the experience of building their own graphics rendering engine, they can do good decisions.
So the areas that are obviously in need of overhaul in AC are physics rate (it couldn't handle ultra-stiff LMP suspensions), the math for vehicle location/speed is too imprecise the further from the origin you go so really long tracks don't work reliably in multiplayer, night graphics, rain graphics, certain racing rules (e.g. single-player has no rolling start), lack of trackside animations other than those fake DX11 waving flags, limited support for suspensions (you can't even fake a DeDion suspension).
Are you sure the list is that short? Then there are the tires that make up for the aero, the need to offset the point of aero pressure, no drag effect for the car ahead, ....
I remember reading one of the first releases they are doing only one class so they can concentrate on fine tuning physics based on the original AC1 physics.
If the FAQ says almost scratch made, I would take it with a pinch of salt. It's not the first time a sim developer has been found to provide alternative facts in marketing. Ian Bell not long ago claimed that Project Cars now uses less than 1% (or something like that) ISIMotor code. How he arrived at that number I have no idea as such a calculation would require him to go through line-by-line all the thousands of code rows. I'd argue there is no such thing as "scratch made" sim anymore. Perhaps back in Geoff Crammond days it was possible, but today it takes probably at least five years to build a scratch made sim that community would approve. All sims on the market today are iterations in the sense that the are based on previous releases, which in turn are based on previous releases... etc. gMotor developed by ISI go as far back as the early or late 90's.
To use old things is logical. Why are you going to reinvent the wheel? It would be a waste of time to rewrite the same thing every time. The key is if it's possible to improve a part that fails, or you have to rewrite the whole part (object, function, library...) and the consequenses of this with the rest of the program. The software development has changed a lot the last years. Nowadays a program is a set of objects that interact betwen them and the more flexible the relations between the objects are, the more scalable the system will be. To write a complex program from scratch is unrealistic. The developers use third party and old, libraries, tools and source code.
The calculation is straightforward, it's used all the time in software engineering, there are tools to measure the amount that code changes - "code churn". Add a bit of marketing licence and you have the 1% figure.
Hello, just a question. I took assetto corsa but I do not play it. I have all the DLCs. This particular AC 1 car content will it be usable in the new ACC if I buy the new game ?
Has anyone heard if ACC will have tire flex physics? I would aske in RD but it serms to be a sore subject for some AC guys.
AC1 already has it, as confirmed multiple times by the dev. It only lacks the visual part, which will be added to ACC.
It feels like it's missing compared to rF2. Is it as detailed? The way I understand is it takes tire flex into account but doesn't have tire flex physics as detailed as rF2? No disrespect implied.
Just read that ACC will be getting a new 3D tire flex physics. I always said AC (all sims) can use more physics detail.
Just like rF2 started from rF1 physic and improved it, the same can be expected for ACC. Aris wrote a pretty detailed post on his FB page about physic improvements expected for ACC: having to focus on a single series will definitely help devs in developing and refining features needed for those cars.
But will ACC use a first-principles physical tire model like iRacing and rF2 are using? This was probably the reason they didn't have visual flex in old AC, because the entire tire model was mathematical (with nothing really rotating), so it doesn't naturally get translated in graphics. Maybe they now do some graphical tricks to match what is being calculated, but I doubt it will be same as in rF2, i.e. a physically simulated rotating tire.