Can you drive an F1 car on the ceiling?

[Marek Lesniak]

If you want to make this kind of aero test, you will need to make kind of a bobsled track - very narrow, just for one car with walls on both sides.

I already know, aero is OK. It's clearly visible that up to 90 deg. it works as should (towards surface) so with another 90deg. it will also work as should.

I believe this is rather a limitation in track technology itself - where racing surface is stored in form of heightmap, rather than full 3D mesh. If you recall - rF1 had HAT data for that.

Yup, got confirmation - that's the reason, why we loose grip past 90 deg. They are aware of that and at some point, there will be a better implementation of track surface but that is not their top priority right now.

 

[jtbo]

As it doesn't look possible with current physics but racing on an upside down straight would have an interesting effect. As you approach another car in a draft taking air off their wings then its possible one or both will fall off due to the reduced downforce.

Lift created by a fixed wing is always relative to the wing whichever way it is pointing, you could easily make a race car take off if aero is modeled realistically but it will not stay up there as you have will lose all power once the drive wheels have left the ground. You would also have no control of the wings so it will just go up and end up in a Weber type crash.

Those crashes happened because the car was designed for minimum downforce and coming over the crest would lift the front up off the ground and air got underneath the car. The car didn't have enough downforce at this point to counteract the lift and so it got airbourne twice. This could have been avoided by lifting off coming over the crest or even a quick dab on the brakes to lower the front as it comes over the crest as rally drivers do over some crests.

If you consider an A380 can produce enough lift to take off at around 270kmh with 650 tonnes, an f1 car at 600kg could easily take off at much lower speeds and the wings are there also to avoid this happening. If they didn't create enough downforce then going over crests AKA Webberstyle would make them end up in the scenery. The F1 wings are basically just a reverse airplane wing creating reverse lift, upside down in theory it should have enough lift to keep it on the roof. The wings are fixed so they produce lift pushing the tyres down to the road, it shouldn't matter which direction the car is going relative to gravity as long as enough lift is generated to easily overcome it.

This is the same as military jets that can fly in any direction relative to gravity because they produce so much lift at the speeds they travel gravity is a very small factor relative to the total amount of lift. The main difference is they use a jet engine and not a driven by wheels on the ground so the car on the roof will be much less stable then it is on the ground having lost its weight which is now working against the lift.

600kg car with 1200kg of downforce going upside down would be 1200kg - 600kg working against it giving it only a 600kg weight holding it on the roof. Driving a f1 car on a flat road with 0 downforce would be completely unstable at any speeds much over 100kmh and a slight bump would send it flying, also you would lose traction and then speed which intern would reduce lift and down she comes. Even if you take the wings off an f1 car the body will create some downforce so zero downforce would be completely un-drivable. You would need at least 3x the cars weight in downforce to make it driveable upside down and I can see a real test driver raising a hand for this test lol.

This reminds me, I did crazy experiment in rF1 once, where I put wings that create lift to car instead of having downforce, I tuned it so that around 150kph light Kantti car had a lift off, was bit crazy thing, but indeed it was lifted off the ground, then speed decreased and it dropped to ground, not much of use for the car, but it certainly did work how I would except such to work in real world.

I think that this topic might give some ideas for ISI how to improve their engine in future so that we could re-create stunts for modern day machines, if that mod will not sell a lot copies of rF2, then I don't know what will, nobody hates stunts game
There was also Stunt car racer game and that is what was attempted to create for rF1, Hump back track is part of that project, those two are such crazy things that they would deserve a mod for sure, also such things probably allow ISI to perfect their engine further as more is found that can be improved.

 

[Johannes Rojola]

There was also Stunt car racer game and that is what was attempted to create for rF1, Hump back track is part of that project, those two are such crazy things that they would deserve a mod for sure, also such things probably allow ISI to perfect their engine further as more is found that can be improved.

I think that could work still. It doesn't have any 90 degree slopes, just huge hills and banked turns, jumps and other danger. It was made for NR2003 and worked like charm.

 

[MJP]

Did the loop in a Spark F1, sorry for the crappy vid but whenever I try to get someting at a reasonable filesize it looks crap, if I go for reasonable quality the filesize is massive. Did want to do a slo-mo with outboard cam but fraps only does 30secs of vid,

No engine sounds cos I can't open the MAS file to extract it in devmode.

******************* update *********************

Just found out Afterburner captures videos lol, here's the SparkF3 (with sound thx jtbo) to replace the F1 vid and the related vids seem to be kosher now.

 

[jtbo]

Did the loop in a Spark F1, sorry for the crappy vid but whenever I try to get someting at a reasonable filesize it looks crap, if I go for reasonable quality the filesize is massive. Did want to do a slo-mo with outboard cam but fraps only does 30secs of vid,

No engine sounds cos I can't open the MAS file to extract it in devmode.

You don't need to extract sounds, I placed sound.mas to same folder where other car files are and then I did this addition to .sfx file and GTR has sound, should work same way with 60's cars, also most of the other stuff can be left to .mas files if .gen file is told about where and what .mas files are needed for the car:
// NISSAN GTR FIA GT1
// V0.41
MASFile=nissan_gtr\1.0\NissanGTREngine.mas
// ENGINE SOUNDS (INSIDE)

edit: Shameful people some are, in related videos I see some piracy stuff, hopefully ISI checks those out and slaps their asses...

 

[oldschool1478]

I have not read all of the posts, so this may have already been mentioned.
Why not make a long straight road, and slowly rotate the road 180deg. after full downforce is achieved?

 

[K Szczech]

No need to - we allready tested what we wanted to test

Yup, got confirmation - that's the reason, why we loose grip past 90 deg. They are aware of that and at some point, there will be a better implementation of track surface but that is not their top priority right now.

That's why I described it as a probable cause. If you connect a few facts it's almost obvious.

And of course it's obvious it's not their priority At least we know this aspect of aerodynamics works properly.

 

[DJCruicky]

A big thank you to Johannes Rojola for taking it on himself to make this test track. It was a worth while experiment.
I gave it a good go, but like others have found, the RF2 physics aren't quiet there yet to handle upside down driving. Was fun trying but.
Again a big thank you to Johannes, lots of rep to him.

DJ

 

[jtbo]

I got an idea, what about if we make track from single plane elements that are tilted to 45 degree angle and are placed 1-0.1mm apart each other, you would of course need thousands of these.

Oh and another idea, I remember seeing angle in tire making tool/guide/files, I think it was 90, making new tires with 360 degrees might also work?

Edit: yeah, I remember right 90 degrees, 45 camber limit, change that to something better and it should work, quote from tire guide:

RealtimeCamberLimit=45 // Helps to efficiently translate the geometry into the realtime brush model, basically so we don't waste bristles on the sidewall. We believe that 45 to be a good


RFACTOR 2 – TGM TYRE TOOL DEFINITIONS
compromise, but this angle would need to be increased for motorcycle racing. Increasing this may also come in handy for anyone wanting to have a go at creating a 2 wheel stunt driving mod.

I have a go at it after I have finished eatin.

edit2: oh yes, I need to compute tires with tgm tool, so it will be tomorrow until that is done, but if someone has machine with 4Ghz or something it could be done faster of course. How nice it would be to have possibility to run tire computing with Boinc or similar

 

[Marek Lesniak]

That is in relation to surface. Like the TGM manual says, more than 45 deg. you may need when doing 2 wheel stunts and for motorbikes

 

[jtbo]

That is in relation to surface. Like the TGM manual says, more than 45 deg. you may need when doing 2 wheel stunts and for motorbikes

OR when putting road to million pieces that are tilted to angle but each piece so close each other than it makes smooth road, there you can have pretty weird angles, so tires should be made so that they can handle that.

Lamellar planes one after another at angle and so close each other than physics engine fails to see gaps, in practice you would be driving on edges of millions of road planes. It might be tad heavy of course, 10km is quite many 1mm gaps for example, might be bit hard for performance in max even with array command you can do it relatively easily.

 

[martymoose]

I got an idea, what about if we make track from single plane elements that are tilted to 45 degree angle and are placed 1-0.1mm apart each other, you would of course need thousands of these.

Oh and another idea, I remember seeing angle in tire making tool/guide/files, I think it was 90, making new tires with 360 degrees might also work?

Edit: yeah, I remember right 90 degrees, 45 camber limit, change that to something better and it should work, quote from tire guide:


I have a go at it after I have finished eatin.

edit2: oh yes, I need to compute tires with tgm tool, so it will be tomorrow until that is done, but if someone has machine with 4Ghz or something it could be done faster of course. How nice it would be to have possibility to run tire computing with Boinc or similar

I have an i7 2700k @ 5ghz with 32gb of ram so can help out if you give me a link to any tools needed.

 

[jtbo]

I have an i7 2700k @ 5ghz with 32gb of ram so can help out if you give me a link to any tools needed.

Great, it is really simple, all you need is file I attach here and save that to rf2\ptool folder.

Then from rf2 launcher you need to go to advanced tab, write +ttool to dev mode command line, then back to simulate tab and start dev mode and tire creation tool starts.

From tire tool you can find file open box where you have to type name of tire file including .tgm extension and then hit open.

After that you need to go to bottom of menu system, sometimes it is easier to resize box bit smaller from top corner and lift it up from title bar so that you can see text run automated, pushing that button starts computing, when percent done reaches 100 you will need to save file to different name, I usually add just number to file.

Now as there are two size of tires in F1 car, it is needed to do same for other tire too.

 

[martymoose]

Ok cool just got back to my PC, I dont have a Ptool folder should I just create one in the Program files x86/rfactor2 folder or in the documents/rfactor2 folder? I have win7 x64 and the documents/rfactor2 folder is where all userdata, packages etc is and in program files its only core and plugins folder.

 

[jtbo]

Ok cool just got back to my PC, I dont have a Ptool folder should I just create one in the Program files x86/rfactor2 folder or in the documents/rfactor2 folder? I have win7 x64 and the documents/rfactor2 folder is where all userdata, packages etc is and in program files its only core and plugins folder.

Create it to Program files\rFactor2 folder (or where your rfactor2.exe is), that is where it looks for files, it might be that it gets created automatically when tool is ran, but can't remember, can't harm making one

 

[Gearjammer]

Has anyone done any further testing to see why the FISI is able to stick to the side wall of the tunnel even when it isn't going anywhere? This should not be possible in reality as there is no force that should be pushing it against that wall, only gravity pushing car down towards the bottom of the tunnel. My last test I was able to park the FISI at the 90 degree mark and the car would hardly move at all towards the ground.

 

[martymoose]

Create it to Program files\rFactor2 folder (or where your rfactor2.exe is), that is where it looks for files, it might be that it gets created automatically when tool is ran, but can't remember, can't harm making one

For some reason as soon as I open the tgm file and then scroll down the app crashs, I dont think my ptool folder is in the right directory I have tried putting it just about everywhere but same result. It doesnt seem to be loading the file properly from what I can tell. My UAC is disable Ive tried the root directory where the rfactor2.exe is and most folders but keep getting the same result.

 

[Gearjammer]

Have you tried not creating the folder and just use ptools to see if it creates the folder itself?

 

[martymoose]

Ok I deleted my folder and just saved a file to see where the folder was it created a folder called pTool and I was just making ptool so all good.

 

[martymoose]

looks like it will take a while so i will just leave it running and post the completed files here once done. Its pretty late so I need some sleep.