I began my sim GT-racing journey with ACC. Prior to its release I was mostly into rally and road cars. Following it out of early access was uninspiring to say the least. The cars drove like lumbering tanks with no feedback, and I struggled to condition myself to put in the minute, controlled movements necessary to get anything resembling a decent lap. While it was still in EA, S397 put out their laser scanned Sebring and for the first time I saw an rF 2 video of someone driving a field of GT3 cars. Watching the motion of those cars over bumps and curbs got me purchasing rF 2 immediately. Compared to the broken, static movements I was used to in ACC, it was like a breath of fresh air. I had never seen sim cars take curbs so realistically before, with a rendering of weight transfer, inertia and tyre deformation I only knew from real life. It just looked 'right'. I paid full price for everything and dove in. From that day on rF 2 became without a doubt my favourite racing simulator, despite its many flaws (all of which have been discussed at length on this forum). Now that we're all locked away, I'm rapidly upgrading my sim rig, as well as developing more sim racing content, I thought it would be a great time to look at where both games are, since ACC is well out of EA, and rF 2 has consolidated a strong collection of GT3 content. What do you guys think? I've heard it said that the lumbering, vague feeling of ACC is how those cars are meant to feel, but every part of me that's ever driven an automobile screams whenever I compare rF 2 to it. My gut reaction is that the 'data' in ACC is likely more correct, but the fundamental physics model of rF 2 is substantially more advanced, so whereas one has the correct 'figures' but incomplete driving model, the other one has the complete opposite.