iRacing has chassis flex and I think AMS1 doesn’t. BTW: I believe AMS2 (and Project Cars 1&2 ) has it too. Still it’s possible that AMS1 F. Vee is the most realistic. I think realism is more dependent on how accurate car values/parameters are fed into the mod. For instance Madness engine is very advanced, simulates many aspects that rF2 engine doesn’t, but still handling varies depending on a car.
Formula Vee
- Thread starter Adrianstealth
- Start date
iRacing has chassis flex and I think AMS1 doesn’t. BTW: I believe AMS2 (and Project Cars 1&2 ) has it too. Still it’s possible that AMS1 F. Vee is the most realistic. I think realism is more dependent on how accurate car values/parameters are fed into the mod. For instance Madness engine is very advanced, simulates many aspects that rF2 engine doesn’t, but still handling varies depending on a car.
mantasisg
Registered
Car manufacturers, designers, engineers usually tends to highlight increases of chassis stiffness, so I guess the stiffer the car body is, the better it is for handling. Or maybe not always ? I imagine cheap FVee wouldn't be the stiffest car in the world.
In Reiza DLC thread, which I have linked to in this thread earlier, Renato from Reiza provided some examples of how difficult is Brazilian FVee. It is obviously more difficult comparing to Australian for example. I guess it could be because Brazilians might use cheaper components, cheaper and worse tires... Reality is right there to examine, there is footage where you can see Brazilians really fighting the car. I guess for rF2 they decided to do it as fair as possible, especially knowing that for AMS2 they won't go "hardcore".
p.s. I think rF2 FVee is awesome, I just think its default setup isn't good.
In Reiza DLC thread, which I have linked to in this thread earlier, Renato from Reiza provided some examples of how difficult is Brazilian FVee. It is obviously more difficult comparing to Australian for example. I guess it could be because Brazilians might use cheaper components, cheaper and worse tires... Reality is right there to examine, there is footage where you can see Brazilians really fighting the car. I guess for rF2 they decided to do it as fair as possible, especially knowing that for AMS2 they won't go "hardcore".
p.s. I think rF2 FVee is awesome, I just think its default setup isn't good.
That's your subjective opinion. For a long time I had similar feeling that rF2 had most RL driving feel. Especially FFB and tires felt very communicative, dynamic and "natural" when driving at and over the limit. Then I've read that perhaps FFB is too informative vs RL.
Also there's no consensus, but few RL GT drivers said ACC is most realistic sim. Now does ACC feel like driving a spreadsheet?
BTW: So in rF2 is the most immersive, mostly due to it's (overly?) dynamic FFB, where I feel every little bump etc. That's why despite complaining and it's flaws I still get back to it from time to time.
Last edited:
green serpent
Registered
TL;DR: I drank too much beer today.
Some cars in rF2 IMO feel downright terrible, and perhaps they even have handling that is not like the real life car, they STILL feel more dynamic and "real" in the sense that there is not some point where the physics kind of stops and you're at the limits of the physics where there is no more deeper information. rF2 is just more granular than other sims, more layers to the onion, even if the onion makes you cry sometimes (laughing face).
99% of what I'm saying is simply speculation and my opinion, I'm not saying I'm right. This may be some A-grade apologetics here and a bit of babble, and not to labour on the point, but even if an rF2 car is not the most perfect 1:1 with real life, it still has the most deep, nunaced, natural, and fun feeling driving. Nothing feels wrong with it within the reference frame that is rF2 as if it were a self contained entity. Other sims by contrast reach a point where "computer says no", like, you've reached the event horizon of information and you got there in about an hour and there's nothing more. It's like trying to have a deep conversation with someone and after about 5 minutes you realize there's no more depth to them and they start repeating phrases like an NPC.
Okay, I might have to go and buy ACC now and possibly eat my words!
Seeing as I used the word "feel" three times in the sentence, you are 100% correct that it is subjective! However rF2 IS technically the most dynamic sim, i.e quasi physical tire/chassis flex, physics driven ffb etc (unless I'm mistaken), so I guess my subjective opinion happens to be inline with objective fact
Compared to what? An old Alfa Romeo or old Porsche where you can feel the very texture of the road through the thin wooden steering wheel? Or a modern Gt3 racecar with power steering? The former it's probably pretty close, the latter rF2 would probably have more feel than RL (IMO). The raw signal seems pretty correct... self aligning torque etc, but the intensity/lack of dampening of the signal is probably a bit much. But those things are adjustable by the end user... they can't make it be the perfect experience out of the box, because everyone uses different gear. Unless they said, on a "fanatec DD with this and that setting, that is real", short of that, the end user has to tweak it to make it feel right, which is going to be subjective. As far as I know, rF2 does not simulate powersteering, so until they do that, then it makes sense that the FFB is a bit more communicative.
I'm going to confess, I have driven basically every sim but not ACC. I will use AC to illustrate my point. AC feels like driving a spreadsheet in the sense that it feels like a curated experience, like a bunch of really talent people got together and said "we're going to make a pretty realistic game, and we're going to tweak the parameters and ffb to make it feel as good as we possibly can". The result is it feels really good to drive (maybe not totally realistic though).
Some cars in rF2 IMO feel downright terrible, and perhaps they even have handling that is not like the real life car, they STILL feel more dynamic and "real" in the sense that there is not some point where the physics kind of stops and you're at the limits of the physics where there is no more deeper information. rF2 is just more granular than other sims, more layers to the onion, even if the onion makes you cry sometimes (laughing face).
99% of what I'm saying is simply speculation and my opinion, I'm not saying I'm right. This may be some A-grade apologetics here and a bit of babble, and not to labour on the point, but even if an rF2 car is not the most perfect 1:1 with real life, it still has the most deep, nunaced, natural, and fun feeling driving. Nothing feels wrong with it within the reference frame that is rF2 as if it were a self contained entity. Other sims by contrast reach a point where "computer says no", like, you've reached the event horizon of information and you got there in about an hour and there's nothing more. It's like trying to have a deep conversation with someone and after about 5 minutes you realize there's no more depth to them and they start repeating phrases like an NPC.
Okay, I might have to go and buy ACC now and possibly eat my words!
Last edited:
mantasisg
Registered
Isn't it subjective as hell ? Just another thought that hangs loose in the air without any tie to any reasonable argument, example...
I suggest you read and listen less what others say, and try to form your own view. Could start doing it by looking at how reality looks like.
Also have you driven a real car ? Because I have, and the way rF2 physics feel is most natural.
It’s subjective, but was said by person who raced the same track IRL. Don’t remember if it was with the same car though. And that’s the key: opinion from RL racers who race same car with similar setup is very valuable. Especially if he goes on about specifics. On contrary opinion that rF2 feels most natural by someone who never raced at and over the limit with the particular car is almost worthless. Onboard comparisons are a bit better to assess if something is realistic or not , but I don’t have time for that.
I’ve been on track with a sport cars, but too scared to really push to the limit (except karting where risk is much lower).
Last edited:
I'm not an expert, but as said earlier I think except tire model rF2 physics is not superior or "most dynamic" as you said.
I believe iRacing, ACC and now RaceRoom have purely physics driven FFB. BTW: rF2 is not purely physics driven as there are a lot of effects defined in controller .json files that allow to "enhance" the experience. Even AC has physics based FFB, but they have few "fake" optional sliders that enhance FFB. RaceRoom is similar that you have optional sliders.
How do you know rF2 is the "most dynamic". Madness engine has many variables, that rF2 doesn't, so perhaps it's more dynamic?
Agreed
I had somewhat similar feeling when started driving rF2 - I mean especially in comparison to other sims. For instance I didn't like AC FFB, was not informative etc. Yet many people said it's quite realistic.
It for sure would be nice if we, simulator customers, had more objective ways to judge the realism of the physics of these sims. These subjective experiences of realism can be influenced by a lot of different things. Also more objective ways to measure the realism would create an insentive for making sims with actually realistic physics. Now it's more important to just make people think the physics are realistic, which isn't necessarily the same thing.
In Hifi the focus on subjective testing instead of objective measurements seems to lead to more efforts being put on marketing and other things that give nice placebo effect, instead of improving the sound quality of the equipment.
In Hifi the focus on subjective testing instead of objective measurements seems to lead to more efforts being put on marketing and other things that give nice placebo effect, instead of improving the sound quality of the equipment.
Lazza
Registered
The ice analogy is massively overused anyway, but what are you actually talking about?
mantasisg
Registered
I think it is fair for you to say that my opinion is almost worthless, but also it is rude. I might have never had a chance to play with race cars IRL, but I also noticed that tons of people who did, brought any kind of feedback in very rare occasions, and still in some cases things that they had to say didn't seem fully clear if they definitely got to magically understand it all and unlock all truths by some RL driving. I think it takes some specific skills and knowledge to be able to pick details, understand what makes stuff do things that it do, and understand that in both worlds. For example Jimmy Broadbent could never accumulate anything near as valuable as Neils Heusinkveld, even if he drove all race cars full time everyday for the rest of his life, no disrespect, it is just how it is.
The "too much FFB" could be anything. First of all what is this too much to begin with ? Too much details ? Too much force peak ? Too much constant force ? When we would know what is too much, it would be easier to tell if... Stiffer car than real one, or something in setup ? Different caster than real one, steering ratio ? Stiffer tires or in some way different than real ones ? Differently modeled track surface ? It could be something with wrong settings perhaps, it could be settings outside a sim, like settings in wheel profiler. And yes it could be deeper thing within sim, like some wrong parameter or geometry in cars physics, or some inaccuracy within underlying physics is also can't be impossible. It also could just be in persons head, having to drive a race car IRL doesn't make someone to be right about everything with absolute certainty.
I refuse to be a simp for those who has driven like in simulation IRL
This is rF2 forum, so we definitely not only bash it, but stand for it as well. So please pardon me, while I disagree.
First of all, tires for a car is like half or more of it. And everything besides tires is not too shabby in rF2 either. But still most of the dynamics come from aero and tires. There are things like rain, which rF2 is really behind ACC, despite being on advanced tire simulation, I am not sure how is rF2 aero simulation comparing to ACC.
Secondly, I'd like to know what "enhancements" for rF2 FFB is available in its notorious .json files ? I am not too expert on those. But I know that rF2 has perhaps the least sliders for FFB in game that minimally impacts it, and also from building car physics I know that there is only single physics unrelated parameter, that is only there to scale steering forces to fit better within what FFB motors can do. Everything else comes from simulating physics. And the more accurately and more physically correct core physics of a game is includign with cars physics set, the better quality FFB you get, it is almost there is no FFB in rF2, because you feel physics as good as they are, FFB remains there just as a term to describe what device on your desk/rig does, which is producing forces and directions - it is entirely commanded by physics directly. There is no way that the more physical and accurate physics will be, it won't be applied to FFB just the same. There are some other games that doesn't have as good FFB, simply because they don't have as good physics, because as you understand yourself - in simulations FFB is based on physics.
How do you know rF2 is most dynamic ? I think trying it and have your own opinion should work for most. And what dynamic means ? To me it means that each lap every turn in rF2 tends to have unique feel, there is no feel of developing muscle memory and doing absolutely identical inputs, it is new everytime. It happens because great range of variables, which in other sims often are cut down to much smaller ranges due to use of a lot more approximated physics, less physical and more simplified. I am also not expert about madness engine variables, that rF2 doesn't do, I'd be interested to hear about them, perhaps it is more dynamic, but somehow doesn't employ those dynamics for some reason, because I never happened to notice many dynamics I expected, perhaps I should try better next time.
I would also like to reply to your last thought. Why shouldn't people not say that AC FFB, or physics aren't realistic ? I think like them too. But how much realistic is it ? After 2000 hours in there and also modding, not enough for my mind. I found a lot more in rF2, which I am glad not to do a lot before AC, because I wouldn't have enjoyed AC that much as I did. I have 2000 hours in rF2 now too, and it just feels fresh, and the only reason I don't have more is because I have less time to play due to life and also writing walls of text in the forums, which I am sure is too much, so sorry
I think I just happen to like posting.
mantasisg
Registered
True, overused and misused. For example calling iRacing iceRacing is kind of popular meme. But somehow incredibly quick and even quicker than realistic laptimes is possible in there. It just seems like it is more difficult to collect that grip, but it is there ,and there is a lot of it. People just doesn't seem to have a lot of understanding about how grip is composed, how it works in tire. I bet many doesn't even have in mind that there is two different types of friction that interacts.
leseb64
Registered
of course i'm exaggerating, but the skippy and the vee are too slippery, to have done formula renault and ford respectively 215hp and 130hp on Nogaro and Pau-arnos (I'm not a pilot, I just give myself 2 sessions a year) with my little experience i think they are too slippery and some irl drivers who are on iracing who have tested are of the same opinion saying that if irl they were like this there would be deaths every weekend!
by the way i think the new single seater are much better made and conform to the reality usf2k or tatuus, it slides when the tyre are cold or with a mistake of driving as in real in my opinion, and for iracing alias iceracing it's those like me who knew the V2/3/4/5 tyres now i find them really good, not the best but nothing to see with those of 2008/2015 and when i drive the skippy or F-vee i could say icefactor2 lol
Now if you like the GPL glide I have no problem with that it's your vision no more no less!
green serpent
Registered
This thread is turning into "another which sim is best" rabbit hole but I just wanted to respond to this.
I did some searching, and iRacing and ACC both have chassis flex. iracing has physics generated ffb and (I think) ACC does. I assume all sims have 100% accurate newtonian physics (that shouldn't be too hard I hope). And all sims obviously have aerodynamics simulated.
Some of these things might be a bit more well done than others, but at least they all have them. Acc has pretty advanced tire model but still imperial and not physical (NOT saying that that is worse, just "less dynamic" within the context of this conversation). Iracing has physical tire model.
So iRacing and rF2 do indeed have similar levels of "dynamicism" with ACC slightly behind. Not making judgments on the implementation of such things and the intagibles, but as far as ticking physics boxes of this feature and that, iRacing and rF2 are on par with each other unless I'm missing something.
Assuming there is not mistakes in the "basic" stuff, it really comes down to to hardest thing to simulate, how one kind of surface interacts with another kind of surface, i.e tire model.
Lazza
Registered
We're starting to really repeat threads dedicated to Skippy and fvee handling, but they should be much harder to drive than the Tatuus - that's basically the point.
As mantasisg mentioned, very likely you can hit correct lateral and longitudinal g forces with them (let's not enter into the combination, as that then starts the tyre chat for realz), so then any "ice" feeling must be in certain scenarios.
Then you search for Skippy videos (linked already in the aforementioned threads) and see people losing control while going slowly and with seemingly benign inputs.
So I think this needs to be kept in context. Your formula experience is apples, these cars are oranges.
green serpent
Registered
So now this is happening (probably)!
https://www.fvee.org.au/suppliers-and-services/cxc-racing-formula-vee-rental/
https://www.fvee.org.au/suppliers-and-services/cxc-racing-formula-vee-rental/
mantasisg
Registered
It seems apples and oranges can be even FVee. I think it is because FVee is more like a category of cars, it isn't same car everywhere.
This was discussed long ago in Reiza DLC thread.
Look at post #513 driver of Australian FVee shares opinion: https://forum.studio-397.com/index.php?threads/the-reiza-dlc.61402/page-26
Look at response by Renato from Reiza: https://forum.studio-397.com/index.php?threads/the-reiza-dlc.61402/page-28
For a convenience I also just copy video that Renato included in his post:
It definitely can't be real life footage, because as "wise" people say: -harder doesn't mean more realistic.
Looks like it is sometimes.
This was discussed long ago in Reiza DLC thread.
Look at post #513 driver of Australian FVee shares opinion: https://forum.studio-397.com/index.php?threads/the-reiza-dlc.61402/page-26
Look at response by Renato from Reiza: https://forum.studio-397.com/index.php?threads/the-reiza-dlc.61402/page-28
For a convenience I also just copy video that Renato included in his post:
It definitely can't be real life footage, because as "wise" people say: -harder doesn't mean more realistic.
Looks like it is sometimes.
leseb64
Registered
The Vee must be more "slippery" than the barber yes because there is no aero and the tyres are less wide but look they are not slippery on all the corners it behaves more like a kart you can see that the front is looking for constant grip but the rear is quite stable unlike in game where the rear is always in front. ..and the skip is worse, just like iracing changed the behaviour of the skip and others with the new tyres i'm sure if s397 put the same data on the new tyres it would be different and surely more in line with reality!
leseb64
Registered
I have read and once again you remain locked in your vision of things and you don't want to know anything else...(or do we misunderstand each other?)
the IRL pilot says exactly what I've been saying all along, I'm comforted!
"Notice the complete lack of needing to countersteer. The car is very grippy, almost planted and has a very high tolerance level before it steps out of line.
The one in sim is sideways, everywhere. It has horrible lift off oversteer, the back end steps out at any slow corner, and on acceleration snaps like it has 500bhp going through the tires.
The car is a very low power, high grip machine designed to get people into racing at a club level. None of these characteristics are matched with this version that has been produced.
Saying that, it is fun, and looks great - but for all the wrong reasons!"
Renato tries to justify as best he can...green track, tried such a setting...F-vee brezilian...ok...
the IRL pilot says exactly what I've been saying all along, I'm comforted!
"Notice the complete lack of needing to countersteer. The car is very grippy, almost planted and has a very high tolerance level before it steps out of line.
The one in sim is sideways, everywhere. It has horrible lift off oversteer, the back end steps out at any slow corner, and on acceleration snaps like it has 500bhp going through the tires.
The car is a very low power, high grip machine designed to get people into racing at a club level. None of these characteristics are matched with this version that has been produced.
Saying that, it is fun, and looks great - but for all the wrong reasons!"
Renato tries to justify as best he can...green track, tried such a setting...F-vee brezilian...ok...
Last edited: