Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by davidporeilly, Jan 15, 2021.
I also suspect FFB can help control the car more than what real life wheel behavior will have.
Ahah, well, I understand it to a point, but cmon, that doesn't help a whole lot.
I doubt it. Good way would be to have a car modified by yourself, some tire values tweaked and you could observe if it is indeed coming from FFB, or if it is coming from physical simulation, which you perceive through FFB.
Another even better experiment, also easier to do, would be to try rF2 vs competitors with FFB off.
FFB certainly can alter perception a lot, but essentially it is just working as a guide of where front tires are pointed at and gives resistance to change of the direction. Meanwhile tires will still work however the physics of a simulator/car conducts them to work. So in my thinking, there is so much more probability that whatever gets changed in physics will alter FFB, rather than altering FFB would alter cars physical behaviour. Perception doesn't have a lot of physical meaning, although it can influence controlability speed and precision, but it won't alter actual physics.
I hope you don't mind this propaganda.
Many rental rides in IMSA and WEC as shown in the Amatuer and Pro rankings. Rental drivers not only help fill a field they pay for a portion of the cost to run some teams. Imagine budgeting $200K for a handful of stints in a season and midway through the season a rainstorm soaks the track and you gleefully impact a barrier from punching the throttle bit too hard only to be hit with $100K in damages. Most rental contracts have damage clauses. That's why TC is allowed in the sport, and it served well in bringing back the rental market.
On dry pavement TC will impede most of the Pro drivers as it reduces turn exit acceleration a bit. The speed one gains at the exit is carried all the way down the following straight so just a 1 MPH exit speed advantage in some cases can make up to a a very notable difference in lap time. TC lap time deltas are not as prominent on rF2 as they are in real life.
How often am I wrong? That comes from lessons learned aka experience.
theres stating a point, and there’s being snobby. It’s almost as bad as the “it’s unrealistic. END OF” posts.
but these topics tend to go round in circles. At least this time David has taken the time to actually analyse the data instead of just yelling louder than others.
If anything that’s probably why people roll their eyes at these topics XD
Well, how can I know? Never read that much from you. One thing that can be wrong is that some ways of stating the correct things don't help, just that, but I am not that much of a sensitive snow flake, although no one likes people with a superiority attitude that much, even when they might be "superior".
im in contact with the whole RJN Team Rocket team, I could probably ask the question as to how Baldwin, Jenson, O’Brien and Buncombe set it up and why.
Depends how much slip/how much you yeet the throttle I guess
I think and experienced there is a massive gain sliding (not drifting, a pronounced countersteer makes you lose time) in rf2. When you enter a mid-low speed corner with slight oversteer and you keep the same rear tires slip angle throughout the corner with a nearly neutral steering input, you gain a lot of time on the single lap.
I don't have a video proof, but to go fast in corners like Les Combes at Spa, Tosa at Imola, 70% of Nola, you have to drive like I mentioned.
My impression is that the rear tires sometimes manage to generate a high amount of longitudinal grip even if the maximum lateral one is exceeded.
That's also the reason because in qualifying the fastest drivers use TC 0 or 1 in the main competitions.
I found this on the official GT cars, the Dpi and the Lmp2s.
Now I agree that real GT cars are permissive, but to go faster you don't drive them like 4x4.
You didn't realise it, but there's only one user active in these threads I'm aware of that is spreading propaganda, and that isn't you.
What you suggested falls in the lines of what I suggested to neiubermesch, as in, disabling all feedback but visual, and compare sims and also RL footage
Everything I've read on driver technique is written for real life use and many of the resources cited that you can be faster on tight corners if you send the car into a slide, just big enough to do the corner with the steering wheel pointing straight. Some people call it the four wheel drift
I think the slight slip angle you mention is just the car settled with good rotation
A rally driving technique text I assume...
Speed secrets by Ross Bentley comes to mind. Everything else on driver61s channel too.
There isn't THAT much difference from rallying to circuit driving as many people would believe
Wish I had time to be more active, but I like the shape the converstation has taken and the posts give a lot to learn I believe and there are a couple of videos helping illustrate the points. We'll see if studio 397 will refine some aspects in the near future. If not, oh well, I am already very happy with Rfactor2 so I can't say I really really mind
@Davide Arduini What you get is called "neutral steer". There is "understeer", "neutral steer" and "oversteer". Neutral steer means that front and rear tires are performing at about equal level, and has about equal slip angles, sometimes also called four wheel drifting. Thats absolutely most wonderful state the racing car can be in and it makes sense to achieve fastest pace if driven like that. Especially if you can rotate the car with almost no steering wheel input.
But the question is how much, how big the angles are. These modern tires should have pretty small, almost unobservable angles of 3-5degs. Old race cars, like from 50s and 60s 10-15degs.
Also good spot on Nola being outstandingly over the limit track. I remember participating in rF2 comunity race with F2000. And the amount of sideways was excessive. I have had some more online racing with that car, and thats just how it is driven.... PS I was rather successfull in each of those races. The racing was very fun an enjoyable, and I would suppose thats how these cars should be driven to be fast, but definitely in smaller slip angles. You are totally right, there is too much of 4x4 spice in there.
And good observation about having too much longitudinal performance even with max slip angles. However, that actually means that these angles are not yet at maximum
No, not really. It's possible to detect that subtle drift at some videos of an agressive lap here and the car sometimes look like an aeroplane doing it. Slow corners are even easier to throw the car into and take advantage of sliding, as it can't really become uncontrollable, I don't think.
The slower you are the less speed you have to lose to regain grip, and the more speed tire scrub takes off, so yeah, a lot safer on slow corners.
Also why old, slow, but light cars are safeish to hoon around: get some sliding going on and soon the car will slow down enough to grip back. Just don't over do it...
I agree with this. Do you guys think we could do a good enough observation of that by doing a few laps till we can get the car on that sliding state, and then watch the tires mid corner in slow motion and try to noticed how angled they are to the trajectory the car is taking?
EDIT: I'm still hoping a maths nerd is gonna drop by and leave a formula for calculating slip angle with the data we get from telemetry
I think it could be arranged. But the amount of angle is not the whole thing. The speed rate at which the angles change is another very important element, so that should have to be observed too. There are plenty of variables that has an effect, it could be difficult to do strong conclusions. I think it should be possible to find some patterns if there would be a lot of comparisons and observing done...
Wouldn't comparing yaw rates between sims be a good enough starting point? That's readily available in motec by default, I'm just not sure if it uses quite the same variables in each SIM, which could cause a discrepancy in results
Separate names with a comma.