Does rF2 implement chassis-flex or semi chassis-flex?

Tyre-wall flex at its finest

 

Spectators flex at it's finest xD

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9301I mit Tapatalk

 

Camera view from the air (not mounted on the chassis), one may be able to see chassis flex?
(Slo mo too):

 

There exist no graphical model flex, so no.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2leAuODQyg

 

Even ProjectCars Lotus does a better job then AC in this regard I think.

Here is a test since you interested enough let the driving talk to you.

Lotus49 in PC and AC and BT20 or F1 Eve/Spark if you prefer in rF2 @ Monza.

Set cars default or use your setups I suppose does not matter much as long as fuel level is similar.

Okay once warmed up attack Variante Ascari ( after the Bridge ) and let the cars " have their head"
ie: ease off on the steering angle on entry till the inertia becomes overwhelming then try to correct each car back on nice line with steering and throttle losing as little time as possible.

See what you find please, maybe it is all in my head. p

For me PC and AC both felt great with initial FFB , under-steer and inertia however as soon as I lifted off the gas a touch I got good traction and they both got back on line and I could plant my right foot solid mid corner, the feeling of inertia and under-steer just seems to disappear like magic and next lap you do identical.
Pretty Ordinary.

rF2 it is like a ballet you are finely balanced with throttle steering, forever coaxing right up till you clip the grass on exit all the time feeling the car wanting to spit you into the scenery, FFB, under-steer and inertia right till the very end and never ever 2 laps the same.
Magnificent.

Chassis-flex or not

 

May I ask why you are so bent on looking for visual chassis flex? Why do these tiny micromovements - which can be almost impossible for the human eye to perceive (in most cases) - even matter?

If you're interested in how much or little chassis flex can be seen by a person then researching real life cars, rather than a videogame, will serve you better.

 

Okay... #1 James garner was a bad ass...

#2 has anyone seen this? interestingly counter intuitive...

 

You'll see that same level of flex in a cheap uni-body like the Plymouth Horizon/Dodge Omni (Simca Horizon bodyshell). A good rollcage removes the visible flex.

 

I don't think we show chassis flex visually... Not much point on any decent car.

 

You don't, what gives a slight indication that it's the case in that video is that it done with chase-cam, which isn't a fixed cam - moves about just a bit in relation to the cars angle of direction.

 

I didn't think it was much flex at all... And I have to say that "cheap cars" like the ones we have in rFactor have some flex. Everytime I would pull into my driveway the 91 LT1 would bend and the interior lights would come on. But she would still fly through a corner like she was on a rail... As long as you didn't touch the throttle.

View attachment 17893

 

The video below should be more representative of the simulated lotus 49 in AC.

Now this one makes more sense:

And why it can't be so directly compared with the Brabham BT20; the suspension components are different between bt20 and t49.

 

The suspension work is not good to see in this COTA-vid.
From this angle you have to take the angle relative to chassis as a point.
When you do this, you can see that in reallife-video the suspension still works a lot more
than in AC, especially under accelerating/braking! But, thanks that you proofed it here so clearly!
Besides that, this is OT and has nothing to do with chassis-flex.

 

Oh well anything goes to give excuses that AC doesn't do this and that and real life/other games do much better. First of all, in this thread many people compared the lotus 49 to several different cars and said AC's version of the car is not (enough) realistic. Then when I provide videos showing the real life lotus 49's suspension at work, then another raid of excuses to discredit how AC simulated this car.

Here goes one more, go to min ~2:20, and from there you'll have several moments showing the suspension from close-up.
[video]https://youtu.be/daUJc70CjhA?t=2m20s[/video]

And here's another gameplay from ac with the lotus 49 at the same track, silverstone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBGPlJnakpc

I'm not doing any off topic, because in all these pages there has been a big talk about the subject I'm continuing. But until this point no one showed real life lotus 49 videos, so all comparisons were wrongly made, because the bt20 and t49 have too different suspension work to compare to each other, between games and rl.

 

Hmm, interesting discussion.

I don't remember where I read it, but recently I saw an article somewhere discussing one of Virtua Simulazioni's AC mods.
I think it was someone named misterbeam who mentioned some strange suspension issues they were struggling with when creating the mod.

Don't know if that somehow relates to this given discussion?

 

QUF, you are mixing up suspension movements with chassis-FLEX, flex is when a seamingly rigid and stiff part - in this case the chassis - is flexing... So yes you are going off topic.

 

There are no decent videos of a Lotus 49, or any 1960s car, taken at racing speed where flexing would be extreme anyway. Even "Grand Prix" was largely filmed at slow speed then sped up.

The few onboard views aren't in a decent position to show anything but suspension.

 

It does look like there is some chasis flex happening from your video but it's an illusion caused by the constant camera movement and car body roll whilst cornering, etc. It's very misleading otherwise.

One way to confirm this for yourself would be to lock the external camera view to an orientation with the chassis (if possible), then repeat what you did here and played it back in normal or slow mo. I think it would become clear that the chassis is visually rock solid no matter how much you perturb the car.

 

Also very possible that when rendering the video bitrate cause what might look like flexing, too.