I just dont understand why wouldnt someone go around the bloody tracks that are usually in games and scan the crap out of them, sell the data and call it a day.
Both. As soon as something changes, you have a track just as inaccurate as anything else, but you spent a lot more money making it. What??????????? Um, yes it does remove the bumps, that's often what resurfacing is done for. The accuracy is relative to the people doing it and the method they use, we don't use one single method on any race track.
Your question sort of contradicts itself, not sure if I am really answering you or not.... No scanning is cheap. And I've posted many times on why any scanning method won't be making it into a general track production for rF2 (unless some track we sign hands us the data).
Because, as I said above, it's a full-time job. I don't believe iRacing has updated some tracks which changed completely 3-4 years ago. Getting a scanner out there when either the track isn't in-use, or it isn't raining, paying for the track rental, paying for the security personel to be there, paying for the food, the hotel, the rental car, the shipping of the equipment, the equipment itself, the insurance of the equipment, etc. That's why nobody is doing what you're suggesting. Plus, the track makes you sign an agreement. There is a track I'll use as an example in rF Pro, which allowed itself to be scanned on the condition that it's image (the data) was only used in rF Pro, and that rF Pro is not used commercially. They essentially still own the data of their track in rF Pro, exactly the same way that the movie studio still owns the DVDs on your shelf. You don't have the right to use, broadcast, etc, that movie you bought. You have the right to watch it (put simply). A track will quite happily ask every game developer for $20000 for a track license and data acquisition. That beats getting it from one company, and then allowing that company to just sell your data. Edit: And by the way, you just scanned the track and they decided to resurface a section. Enjoy revisiting the track.
Timmy you are tired again. Bumps in the layout = shape of the ground. Gravel little different when resurfacing it since more material may be taken off than in regular asphalt job. My wording, my bad. I meant that a company who has the equipment gets hired to do the job, sells you the data, and vouz la. I didnt know that the track owners can be that anal about a road, but I guess when theres money to be made, just so often people turn anal. Off to the next post to explain myself... this way please *point*
We do simpler, we take primitive geodetic tools and devices, we go on the autodrome to racing days off, we do video photo gigabytes, and then we measure all surface of a track after all arrivals, 2-4 days of laborious work with a level, a laser roulette and 3-4 persons. After, calculations of geodetic measurements and construction 3D the track with all characteristic holes and hills.
I suggest you look at the repaving done on race tracks, not on roads. When they repave a race track, they'll often go down to the dirt, and produce a smoother race track afterwards, with NONE of those bumps. Every single oval I have been alive to see repaved has lost it's bumps, and tracks like Silverstone, Lime Rock, etc that I've even driven on myself lost every bump, too. Yeah, you can do that, but then you have to trust someone else to get the data you want during track time you're paying for. I've seen that fail more than once.
You simply couldn't go out and laser scan a circuit that hasn't been used since the 1970s, or one as large as the Targa Florio, so you have to use historical data to make sure it's as accurate as possible. And for the most part, they are. What Feels is doing with Croft, with Poznan, is going to create something that's more than accurate enough for people on rFactor 2. If the new track that Tim's teasing is indeed Lime Rock Park, we should be able to see how little of a difference laser scanning makes, because it's in iRacing too, along with the Skippy.
This is probably because of my bad english. Even short postings cost me a lot of time. Anyway, you said that the scanned Datas are more or less useless or inaccurate after the littlest change on the track (what is still truth). But why use rF Pro or other Simulators laser scanning to create there tracks? Maybe of the higher accuracy of layout, bumps, curb-profils etc... ? And i think this accuracy is or would be a nice Feature for SIMULATIONS like rF2, too.
Because they have the money to do it, and re-do it. With rF2, we have the budget you give us, which because we have the pricing model we have (for inclusion, not exclusion), isn't enough to do it, and re-do it.
Actually, I think you're right. Let me explain. I laser scanned Lime Rock Park last year. The track is definitely different now compared to iRacing: besides the complete repave and new curbs, they also added two chicanes. However, the reason I believe you're correct Twista, is that the basic layout never changed. The version in iRacing may have a different surface and no chicanes, but the elevation and radii of the turns is EXACTLY how it still is in real life. Maybe a few centimeters were shaved here and there, but again, that's my point: I've driven on the real track, and I can't tell. Lime Rock Park, even after repaving, is still the exact same place it was before. And that, folks, is what laser scanning is all about---perfect dimensions. So, like you said, if ISI's method really is as good as laser scanning, then the track should be the correct dimensions with all the same gradients, etc. Bumps? Who cares about bumps?? For one, bumps don't define a track---the layout of the track does. Secondly, tracks evolve...LRP was ice-rink smooth when I visited, but every time there's a race, or it snows one day and is sunny the next, or whatever, the track surface will subtly change. Even the color of the tarmac will change. Furthermore, I have another point to make about laser scanning: being "out of date" doesn't necessarily mean "bad". Anyone who has seen the glorious Spa and Monaco in rF2 surely has an idea of what I'm talking about! Lime Rock Park is a good example. If you want the up-to-date layout, that's perfectly acceptable. However, what's wrong with "2007 Lime Rock Park"? One of my favorite things since I discovered rFactor has been playing modern tracks with layouts that don't exist anymore---like the 80's or 90's Silverstone layouts, Spa with the bus stop chicane, Hockenheim before it was Tilked, Laguna Seca before the infield loop, etc. If you think that newer is always better, then where do we stop? There has to be some point where you stop and say "THIS is the final version." I really don't think ANY track in iRacing---even the 2007 Daytona---can be considered "outdated", unless you are a professional race car driver using the sim as a tool for training. Hell, their 2011 (post-repave) Daytona scan could even be considered "outdated" now, because at the 2012 Daytona 500 when Montoya crashed into the jet dryer (and they subsequently dragged it off the track), a big scar appeared on T3. My point is that as sims gain more fidelity, we aren't generically representing a track anymore, we're representing how the track looks right now. And how the track looks right now will always be the same. For example, if they suddenly decide to reprofile a section of Sepang next year, ISI shouldn't throw out the current one--just rebrand it Sepang 2012 and it will never be "outdated"---maybe "classic".
Ok... first off I`m no expert on this in any way but surely bumps do help to define a track... I`ve heard many a real life driver talk about them saying things like "That bump really caught me out, got to watch that one" or "It`s really bumpy on that section, nearly rattles your fillings out" I know the tracks evolve from day to day but the bumps, certainly the "big ones" surely must be included if they are there in real life.
i was thinking from all the bragging about IRACING that they have the best tracks? well if there not up to date what is with all the HYPE about IRACING ? IMHO there physics are crap compared to rf2 and the ffb now i hear the tracks are not up to date... i didn't like it and erased it from my pc, and didn't pay for it so that was even sweeter. i thought IRACING said there tracks get rescanned ? or is that a misleading comment by them to suck you into buying there product ?
I think maybe we need to make like Inuits did with snow and invent a few new words for "bumps". An example of a "bump" that needs to be exact is at the end of the long back straight at Watkins Glen. That's one of the main reasons they created the Inner Loop--by the early 90s cars were hitting like 180mph on the back straight and they had to brake and turn over this huge crest. A few guys died crashing there. Instead of changing the turn, they created a chicane right before it. Like I was saying about vocabulary though, I don't know if "bump" is a great word for that exact feature. When they get that big, that's part of the elevation data. Actually, that's the differentiation I'm trying to make. What I mean about the bumps not mattering is well exemplified by ISI themselves. Go drive Spa in rF2 and try to tell me the bumps aren't fabulous. They won't show me the time machine they used to bring the laser scanner back to 1966 though, so I have to believe they are faked. This is the kind of approach that would be appropriate for a track like Sebring, which is concrete and that can even shift from day to day because of the heat (just look how cracked it is). Regarding Lime Rock Park, the track is so smooth that most cars you take around it won't feel any bumps. I'm already laughing because I can imagine people driving that track and saying, "of course this isn't laser scanned, where are the bumps?" Tell me, why does "not up to date" automatically ensure they are "not the best tracks"? It's interesting how it's NOW when you hear the tracks are "not up to date" you get upset. Because, and here's the point I'm trying to make, how would you have ever known otherwise? Do you need to have the in-game track exactly how it exists today? Why? Based on that logic, how often (in your humble estimation) should iRacing rescan their tracks? By the way, they've rescanned Daytona, and I believe they've also rescanned Silverstone...
Ahh well, maybe we are talking different types of bumps because I`d never say that particular feature/section was a bump lol... That`s if I am thinking on the same bit your thinking on... I take your point though but if I do understand you then I`d call them something other than "bumps"
