Many drivers are overriding the cars steering wheel ranges in options to get more steering lock. Why not disable that option and add steering lock degree to setups instead? Might solve the very unrealistic steering wheel movement in competitions.
Well what you suggest could be cheated/overridden from other steering sensitivity or external wheel ranges settings, doesnt fix the issue. Issue is the physics, the physics need to be prioritized over everything else, to cure the fact that extreme slip angles gain you laptime so easily, or don't penalize you quickly enough. Almost identical behaviour on almost every rF2 car.
Just for the people who dont know about this, here is a video onboard from GT Pro with steering wheel enabled:
I think you should post this as a bug in itself relating to the tyre slip angles because the fact this works at all, let alone is the quickest way to drive at the most elite level of this game is absolutely horrendous in what is supposed to be a simulator....
It's like Risto states, the issue is in the tyre physics, not the steering. Discussing what the exact issues are would be extremely difficult since we have close to zero data on the tyres. Though, since this kind of driving seems to be a general trend in most official content, where you can drive at around 13-15 deg SA and benefit from it, it definitely raises concerns from a customer's perspective and should be a concern from the internal team. Maybe the developer team, or some community communicator have any answers or explanations to why it is like this and if it's intended or not. Personally, just shooting from the hip, I believe the lack of general influence from the temperatures allow you to drive like this. Lack of drop-off in lateral force at high SA on the rear tyres could also be a thing. I know that some real life tyres have a very early peak in lateral force on the rear tyres and a quite aggressive drop off at slightly higher SA, which in theory should diminish any benefit by excessively sliding the rear since you will operate at a lot lower grip levels. The peak lateral force obviously shifts a bit depending on the load (generally later peak with more load), but it's still fairly close in terms of where the lowest peak is. As for the front tyres, I wouldn't be surprised if peak lateral forces were at about 8 - 11 deg SA at most loads, and fairly consistent beyond that, which makes me think that the extra temperature gained due to putting more energy into the tyre doesn't have enough influence. A lot of waffle from my side likely, but it's a topic I believe is of extreme importance as if affects the way of driving. As it is now, it's not much enjoyable to just move all grip to the rear in the setup and overdrive the front to maintain balance.
If this was ACC (I think the leading sim in terms of realistic driving correlence), we would now see the physics dev enter this topic and either accept the shortcomings or discuss/argue about the limitations of the engine or just bash our opinions if they are wrong. When can we see something like that in rF2? "We are looking into it" followed by eternal silence does not cut it. Maybe some insight by everyone in S397 why you guys aren't doing the "band-aid" approach to all such problems, which would easily fix and make driving more realistic? I assume then you guys want to do it "properly", but is that the plan, or just an excuse why not to do anything at all, because doing it properly (getting real correlance with "real" data and "real" simulation) is too difficult? rF2 needs a physics frequent roadmap just as much or even more than a general content roadmap. https://www.studio-397.com/2016/05/hello-and-welcome-to-our-new-physics-development-blog/ Things like these. Even if it is just the physics team showing off what they are working on, some comments by people we don't see and some awknowledgment of the issues the top competitors are revealing. Without things like that, it's too easy to lose faith and also not have the energy to input constructive feedback and testing, because we don't see it going or getting anywhere.
We need better communication for sure... wasn't pushing for more until the competition system and the UI were fully release (and functional.) ...but past that, we really need a clear 'physic' roadmap... or lack thereof... if the plan is only to release content within the existing engine... that's (kind of) fair as long as it's made clear.
Agreed. Lack of transparency is one of s397's biggest issue. There isn't even a simple public bug tracker or known issues log where modders and new comers to rf2 can refer to. Marcel likes to say in interviews that he comes from open source development background. That's ... interesting ... given s397's approach to rf2's development (or lack of) since they have taken over.
