Now here my point about laser-scanning: If you didn't tell me that corner was 1 or 2 metre off, would I have ever know otherwise then it being perfect??? So why spent big bucks if you don't really notice it anyway Of course I'm fine with people willing this, and if they want to pay for it they can in iRacing, and I believe I read AC has laserscanning too??? To each their own of course, but I'm fine like it is.
my best time in simming is learning existing tracks, its (for me) what simming is about, as I have no chance knowing them IRL. I believe a lot of people think like me, so I do want my tracks as accurate as possible. If laser scanning is no big deal, Im ok about that, but I do want my sim to be humanly accurate. (1 or 2 meters off is unexeptable)
Well, I just put in a random number, don't know how much it would be. But the point is, wether you notice it or not. How do you people feel about Malaysia for instance, or Estoril. Especially with Malaysia I get the feeling that it is exactly as it is in real life Estoril you hardly see on tv, so don't know about that one
thats the point, it doesnt matter if you are noticing or not, I do want to race in a track as accurate as possible. Tim assures that tracks are as accurate as possible (within economic reasons) and I tend to beleive him. (btw 1 or 2 meters is waaay too off)
My point exactly. Accurate as possible gives me the warm fuzzies. About bumps and another kind of bumps, lets call them humps. Bumps get leveled out the humps dont when resurfacing a track, unless they move ground in serious manner, which they usually dont. Part of the layout are the humps. Bumps, imperfections on the pavement. Now, there are some famous "humps" in the tracks around the world, I expect them to be there in SIMULATION. New pavement, smooth as a babys bottom, old pavement lumpy as Keith Richards face, both can be just as enjoyable to drive, but the layout can be right only in one way, and thats the way it is/was out there.
Based on that logic, how often (in your humble estimation) should iRacing rescan their tracks? well first let us know what yr the track was scanned, 2nd thats up to there members playing the sim there the 1s paying for them. imho when the track has had any major changes to the track surface, lengthening or shortening of the track.
Yip me too... as accurate as is possible. If it`s in/on the track in real life it`s got to be there in sim world too (imo) Good post.
For our non-professional sims laser scanning definitely IS a collosal waste of money imo.. yeah it allows all the micro bumps to be scanned, but having data and being possible to actually make any real use of them are 2 different things, I remember some guy on virtualR commenting about the amount of data collected from a scan, basically its 100s GB of data per track. With such amount of data there really is every microbump etc. logged but for the purpose of a sim that has to run on our computer PCs this data has to be dumbed down by so many levels that 95% of this accuracy gets completely lost, and even if some of the microbumps do make it to the final track model, our common hardware like G25 has no chance to react to them at all. I couldn't feel much more when I tried iRacing at a friends pc, compared to any normal rF1 track. If I didn't know, I wouldn't notice. I think that many bumps actually need to be faked and exaggerated so they become noticeable on our wheels, if they were realistic we wouldn't feel them. You could compare it to buying a $10000 sound amplifier, using profi sound card and cables, and then connecting this all to a $5 speakers from Tesco. The potential for a good sound is there, but it can't be actually used. As for elevation & corner accuracy, I just don't care if there's an elevation of 3.3% instead of 3.7%, corner radius off by 30cm etc. car physics is more important imo.
Of course it would be perfect to have all the weather + dynamic track of rF2 + having every track rescanned every few months but that's a bit unrealistic, so having to choose out of these, the weather & realroad are far more important.
konus is using the scan-Laser to make their circuits and cars!I always thought that ISI is a bigger and "richer"(has more budget) team than Konus"!
ISI uses CAD data to build their cars. It's more accurate and preferred method over scanning. http://imagespaceinc.com/technology/car-models-physics/
While I agree with most tracks: The bumps did define the old Lime Rock. If you were off the racing line in some turns, the bumps would ruin your day, you could literally bounce off the race track. You were there last year? They resurfaced it all in 2008, doesn't sound like it has become very bumpy yet if you describe it as silky smooth. But yes, iRacing has the elevation changes, the cambers, but only because Skip Barber wanted the redesign to keep those factors, the only issue being that you can't use the race track off the racing like in iRacing in some turns like you can in real life, because of the bumps. Those defining pre-2008 bumps. You also can't drive on the two new chicanes which were added in 2008...
No, they're not lying, but like everything, there is a list of priorities. They do the rescanning by what they think is important. Most of the ovals will get rescanned first.
Well, what are we really talking about? We're talking about going from the sim, to the real track, right? Well that's the thing, isn't it? Every car is different in real life. If a dev uses one car as an example for all cars of that type (for example we could only get technical info from one BT20), then any turn on a race track could be just as different because of that cars specific handling, rather than any difference in the race track from sim to real or from year to year. That's the thing, if you aren't a real racing driver, the difference (1-2 meters is a LOT, by the way) doesn't matter so much, but if you are? Well, you're really going to have to adapt your sim learning to the real thing anyway: Because the CAR will be different, the weather will be different, etc, etc, etc. That was actually one of the main points made on this page: http://imagespaceinc.com/technology/car-models-physics/ We try really hard to get access to more than one example of each car, and often work from the design. Because once a car has been in a few wrecks, it's just not the car everyone else who hasn't wrecked is racing out there... No matter what, the track you race in a sim, ANY sim, is not the track you will arrive at to drive a real car on. You will have to adapt what you have learned (to the weather, dust, oil, surface changes, tires, rubber, etc, etc, etc). All we can do, is make the learning you do in a sim as close as possible, and that's what we do.
Personally, I'm more interested in Laser Scanning for its accuracy than its resolution. I could care less if it samples at sub-centimeter intervals if the in-game mesh points are 1.5 - 6 meter intervals. As I said in the last discussion about laser-scanned tracks (actually, almost exactly this time last year), I think the argument against laser-scanning that the track changes (bumps and whatnot) from one year to the next (or even from month to month) is completely bogus--because the same thing happens whether it's laser-scanned or surveyed. I think it'd be awesome if ISI could share a general overview of the surveying process. i.e. How many data points are gathered, and with what accuracy. Is the track surveyed at about the same resolution as the mesh is made (i.e. every meter or so)? Ultimately, to me, laser-scanning has its benefits from natural organic-ness. It's accurately capturing the natural undulations and bumps that can affect the balance of the car. IMO, adding a randomize modifier to the track mesh is unrealistic and artificial. Also, editing points manually can lead to errors, because I think that track makers will have a tendency to make the undulations more exaggerated than they would be in reality. Take the bump down the middle of T2 (the chicane) at Palm Beach--to me, that seems unnaturally large, IMO; it feels exaggerated. Because I'm not aware of how the track was created, I assume that the designer tested it in a certain car, and said "that feels about right", and I blame him or her for it unsettling the car . Now, I could be 'completely' wrong in my assumption, but I don't know any better. However, if I knew that it was laser-scanned, I wouldn't even be able to do that. I'd say to myself "well, it's been scanned, that's just how it is". I think that Malaysia and Estoril are other good examples--they 'seem' to be much bumpier in the game than they do in the real world (based on what I've seen of drivers' inputs and on-board cameras). Again, I could be completely wrong in that assumption, but there is a reasonable doubt.
No it isn't. I am yet to see any laser scanned product stating that it happens to theirs... They state it is absolutely accurate, always. These things aren't specified, which makes the fact that it happens a lot more important when you are making your accuracy seem so much better. Also, it makes a huge difference in cost to, like you say, have the same thing happen. That's not really bogus at all...
See, you contradicted yourself there a bit (as far as I can see). You said the same thing happens to both tracks, but you'll only question one? Like was said, when the scan is done, it's great, you have everything in digital form. Then you just have to hope the real track enters stasis, otherwise (as you said above), you should be questioning both, not just the one with less glitz.
