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

Ty for your responses. I wasn't talking about chassis flex. Afaik assetto doesn't have chassis flex simulation. I don't know if they will in the future.
But I was talking about the suspensions, where people in the previous pages said that the lotus49 in AC had bland movement of the suspensions, and that it seemed unrealistic, and also compared to the brabham bt20. So that's why I searched for onboard videos of this car showing that that's how it also is in real life. And the suspension work has very little comparison between t49 and bt20 cars. I wasn't questioning/discussing chassis flex.

And possibly that's why the reason for motion rigs having more activity with the brabham car than the lotus 49. In real life the t49 has less suspension movement, in terms of bumps, bounce, shaking feel; things that the OP talked about and later other people in the thread.

 

i don't have much experience there so i'll have to take your word for it but i think i know what you mean.

 

Put simply... To reduce video size a video codec only changes pixels that change from the one the frame before had. The lesser bitrate and more encryption, the more they do this and the more frames it'll not change that pixel for. If a car went from position A to position C, the video codec might select a like-colored pixel to not change, meaning the pixel stayed A A while those around it went A C or A B, thereby not actually rendering and displaying via video what even happened with the sim. That's largely why fast motion like racing games looks like crap compared to other games in streams and Youtube, etc, because every pixel might need to be different to the one before way more often, and there isn't enough bitrate to do that, so any asphalt texture becomes grey slime at speed.

 

I see what you mean now and also very interesting. So to make perfectly crisp videos you must record and render 100% uncompressed or is there a sweet spot compromise level you've found?

Also to be able to record at a high enough bitrate to keep the video quality crisp...I'm guessing you need an SSD?

 

+1

Historics in fast turns you can feel the push from right rear to left front vice a versa as it transfers, what other sim you feel this in , buggered if I know.

Like I said earlier in thread try my test at Monza it is nothing to do with bagging AC or pCars for visual or physical anything.

Simply with their historics I just lift off throttle and plant it again, there is no real substance to it............ it is just 0s and 1s

It is almost like the inertia is canned and just disappears.

Lift mid turn Monza in BT20 / F1 Eve/Spark is like a screenplay in slow motion. hehehe

 

I record to a WD Black using a special recording card called an Avermedia C985. That gets me raw footage, but it's way too big to upload usually, so I re-render it, and that is where codecs come in. Best I've found is detailed here: http://timwheatley.org/www/2012/06/26/rendering-from-rfactor2-to-youtube

 

Thanks for that link and the very detailed walkthrough, Tim.
That'll come in handy for me soon.

 

Thanks. Bookmarked and will come in handy for a future project i have planned.

 

Your description sounds similar to what I see in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC4qDl4ZMwo and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opzzn9sl1kU
The lotus and brabham bt20 are different cars, different specs. The driving feel won't be the same. The accelerations and general throttle management seem to have a uniform/monotone behavior. Meaning that has a constant acceleration zone, but can still slip out side to side, so is also not like a GT3 car which you can easily floor it right out of the apex. Though, very much different than a car like the shelby cobra, and possibly also than the bt20.

But the brabham bt20 is not some sort of monster. Is not a wild car like the shelby cobra in the acceleration zones. So, watch the lotus 49 onboard videos I linked above (at the cota and barber tracks), look how linear the rate of acceleration is, the car won't try to run from your hands.

 

Troll detected....

 

Not really.

Your response could and should have been: "There is no way any modern video of a Lotus 49 shows it being driven in a way that you can tell the acceleration capability of the car. They are nowhere near those capabilities and not driving 100%. Neither would any video of a BT20." Because that's what I'd have said, and said already in this thread. True, the BT20 and Lotus 49 are different, but how it relates to the topic... Well, it doesn't IMHO.

I think the discussion is pretty pointless really, OP questioned, was answered, done.

If you want to test chassis flex, alter settings in a car mod and go wild to test it.
If you want to trust in us that it's in, go wild and have fun driving them.
If you don't believe us that we have chassis flex, I don't care.

Simple.

 

After carefully watching the videos again, I have to agree with you. It seems to me the AC suspension is pretty good. I was a little too carried away by other videos, which could be misled. I have to make a notion here that we cannot from those videos conclude either rF2 suspension is more realistic than AC's or vise verse.

I feel no shame to correct this. Glad to find a "truth" on this regard. Lots of BS around here, just ignore if I were. Some of cult members just lived this cave too long.

 

Well said, sir!

 

Assetto Corsa uses relatively low polygon physical track meshes that alone can't describe a proper physical driving surface. They lack non-linear surface data, so its tracks are unsuitable for any sort of real world suspension comparison in the first place.

It's already widely known that AC's suspension physics and more aren't on the same level as rF2. Others have already measured it. There is more here.

 

Your opinion is well received. It could be true. However, we got to be fair on this thread. This thread somehow redirected to a subject for "visual physics" on suspension movement by comparing to live videos. From those videos, it seems to me that we just cannot conclude either way (I bet most of us who saw those videos would agree with me). I was carried away at beginning because of my bias towards to rF2. I added notes to clarify this today.

On subjective feels on both sims, I have to agree that hands on FFB, and body and butt feels (on 3DoF motion rig), the rF2 is far better and more realistic than AC.
Time and time tried on AC, then I always came back to the rF2. I ended up spending most of my seat time on rF2.

 

Its not.

http://www.racedepartment.com/threa...actually-looks-like.80188/page-2#post-2074594

 

How does that article have any relevance to terrain and what they "feel like" in each sim.

AC/pCars vs rF2 is plain to see and feel for me.


Maybe you should buy the full version rather then hypotheses.

Terrain and Laser Scan is not enough, it is the combination of all things makes rF2 superior feel for mine.

 

David, stop it. With all your information and facts. We don't like your sort around here.

 

He was responding to Associat0r's claim that AC uses low-poly track meshes, which this picture on racedepartment proves clearly not to be the case. If anything the mesh looks denser than any rF2 track I've seen (not that it matters for FFB feel if the physics itself is wrong). But track accuracy is certainly not the issue with AC.

 

Yeah I get that, but in the big scheme of things terrain is not worth a lot if the car / physics does not give back.


Take Kyalami alpha it is fantastic to drive in right cars, once you hook up it is immersion city , same as Jarama, yet look at their meshs.