Goodwood Circuit

Took just a really quick test of just a few laps. One thing though, running the Oreca P2 car, all by myself, i get a big FPS drop going through the final chicane. Not sure why. Not sure if any one else is having that issue?
 
Chris Lesperance said:
Took just a really quick test of just a few laps. One thing though, running the Oreca P2 car, all by myself, i get a big FPS drop going through the final chicane. Not sure why. Not sure if any one else is having that issue?
Click to expand...

I checked this, and I have no issues there. P.S. thats quite a car choice for Goodwood Circuit :D
 
Firstly thank you Mantasisg for all the effort in bringing this track into RF2.

Is it just me or is the track incredibly bumpy? Not sure if it's relevant but I race in VR and in pretty much every car, my vision is almost blurred by all the bumps and it's a challenge just to hang on to the cars for a lap never mind race wheel to wheel.

A bit like S397's Sebring, it's all very well being "realistic" but for me it wasn't pleasurable hence I returned that track and got a refund.

Not a crtiticism at you Mantasisg but this track is kind of the same...I love Goodwood, but the bumps are killing the fun for me.... a "mooth" version would be awesome :)

J
 
Then I guess this track is not for you :) And perhaps not for the cars that you drive. It is not so painfully bumpy as you describe, and it is much less bumpy than Sebring thats for sure. Maybe you will like more rF2 track like Matsusaka. The track is not going to become undulations free because of someones taste.

Speaking of bumps, I can confess that track was constantly getting less bumpy since the very first release that was for Assetto Corsa when LilSki bashed it for being too bumpy. I argued that it might be too bumpy, but it shouldn't also be perfectly even surface. I mean the track is not flat, but there might be some bits slightly off, as for some cars bumps may appear sever at speeds even though it is just 1-2 centimeters deep/tall.

I would appreciate feecback if anyone would preciselly tell where they feel the bump which they feel that it shouldn't be there. For this latest release I have removed/softened out four slight undulations between fordwater and st. marys which I found to be unrealistic, also one undulation right at the kink when braking into woodcote, so I was actually expecting for someone to notice that.
 
jonrarit said:
Is it just me or is the track incredibly bumpy? Not sure if it's relevant but I race in VR and in pretty much every car, my vision is almost blurred by all the bumps and it's a challenge just to hang on to the cars for a lap never mind race wheel to wheel.

A bit like S397's Sebring, it's all very well being "realistic" but for me it wasn't pleasurable hence I returned that track and got a refund
Click to expand...

Do you have Stabilize Horizon set to High? (I know it's not perfect, and for screens I use my own plugin instead [but it doesn't work in VR], but just in case you missed the option)
 
HI Mantasisg and thank you for taking the time to reply. Firstly I am in no way crtisising your fine work sir, but just trying to give you some feedback hopefully in a positive way. The undulations are spot on in my opinion but what I am referring to is the severity of the actual bumps which to me is a bit like their "volume control or gain " is set to max when perhaps setting "5" might be more realistic.

To explain, here is a quick video I made with a Brabham - note the severity of the suspension movement - Video

Now here is a real life video in a similar car. It's a head cam which doesnt help my case, but if you ignore the head movement and watch the suspension again - Video There is nothing like the same movement compared the the RF2 video.

Here are another two videos of my favorite RF2 cars the Porsche 917 & the modern Porsche GT3 - These highlight my point as you see both cars reacting badly due to the severity of the bumps.

Here are two real life videos where although you cannot see the suspension, if you watch the horizon compared to the car there is again nothing like the vertical movement compared to the RF2 videos. Chris Harris & Tony Jardine

I agree with your comments that tracks are not smooth it is just in this case I think they are over exagerated in comparison to real life and hopefully the videos help show what I mean.

Does anyone else think the same or is it just me?

Jonathan
 
My two pence on the basis of a damp track day a couple of years ago is that the circuit today is smooth, much smoother than the public roads leading to the circuit. I haven't tried the rF2 version yet but don't recall the AC version being as bumpy as in @jonrarit's video. Of course, we're assuming @mantasisg is modelling the modern circuit, it may well have been much bumpier back in the 60's before it closed ;)
 
Thank you for your effort in providing this feedback.

I want to note few things at first. 1.Like Lazza has already guessed looks like you have stabilize horizon setting non default, but looks like you have this setting on 0 rather than max, so your camera is rigidly attached to the car with no damping at all, I don't know if thats what you must use for VR. I have had experience when VR got blurry because headset wasn't mounted properly, so IDK... . 2. 917K HDV file part of physics is majorly wrong, including springs stiffness, dampers, it is not much of a 917K in terms of what is in HDV file it shouldn't be so stiff, but this car should get more from bumps anyway as it is just super fast and it is from an era where cars begun to develop significant downforce, by the way 1'18 with Apex car, which has performance of late 70s F1 car, is a bit slow, so you should be getting even harder bumpness if you went faster :D I have private modifications to 917K, it is still bumpy, and I can do 1'14. 3. I don't think modern GT cars is a good choice to judge Goodwood, it is obviously going to be more bumpy with such car, but it doesn't really fit goodwood anyway, and I did drive it and it wasn't so bad. 4. Most importantly, looks like you don't use the latest version of the mod, which among all changes has some bumps smoother or flattened. 5. There is no bumps volume control in here, the track is based on actual LiDAR data cloud mesh, which was smoothed like 300x and in some locations 100x more. I did paid good attention to the real track in order not to kill the bumps that I am sure that they belong to the track.

I would appreciate if someone would manage to point out bumps locations more precisely which they think that may not belong to the track. Then perhaps I would pay better attention to that and look if it should be improved. I am not going to rework the whole track just to make it smoother for a likes.

Interesting comparison for classic F1 cars. Apparently rF2 car has way more compliance, probably the car from real car does more bumps damping through the tires, and yes the camera might be stabilizing good deal of oscilations so also does the drivers body...

Because all of those things, when I am observing surface characteristics I rely more on exterior trackside cameras, in fact I also do that for vehicle behaviour observations in general, watching cars from outside gives better and more precise understanding.

I am not saying that the mod is perfect. There may be bumps that does not belong there. It is aerial LiDAR data, not high tech ground level scan after all. But in general I am enjoying the track, sorry if some doesn't. I won't repave it. But if you have some precise stuff to point out, other than "whole track is too bumpy", then it would be a bit more productive to discuss.
 
Seven Smiles said:
My two pence on the basis of a damp track day a couple of years ago is that the circuit today is smooth, much smoother than the public roads leading to the circuit. I haven't tried the rF2 version yet but don't recall the AC version being as bumpy as in @jonrarit's video. Of course, we're assuming @mantasisg is modelling the modern circuit, it may well have been much bumpier back in the 60's before it closed ;)
Click to expand...

I think the circuit is less bumpy than in 60s, but I bet it is very similar. The track has been repaved, but it wasn't rebuilt completely, the base layers of the road are same.
 
hi Mantasisgs, thanks for the prompt reply.

I'll double check I am running the most up to date version when I get home. Is it V0.2 I should have?

Comments all noted and yes I am completely with you that Goodwood is really for historics car which by their very nature are more compliant and can absorb bumps much more than modern cars such as the GT3. I was just using the GT3 to show my point and yes I know they weren't "quick" laps by any standard :))

I do race in VR all the time but will have a look into what options are available in terms of horizon stabilising and I'll report back.

Thanks again though for bringing it to R2, without skilled modders such as yourself we wouldn't have a fraction of the varied content that we all get to enjoy today

Jonathan
 
Right. Very belatedly had a go at this circuit (in a 2L "Cobra" so a real @mantasisg session :D) and it's as smooth as I expected (unlike my driving). Next up, a brief drive in the Brabham. The suspension is a bit "bobbly" but no worse than other tracks I've tried and there's nothing coming through the steering (say like the notorious rF1 Brands that used to vibrate your fillings out with my G25 at least). I don't know if it's real or a placebo effect but cranking the shocks up to maximum seemed to reduce it (given rF2's physics I suppose it should do). Nothing like any version of Sebring I've tried either (I hate the track so didn't buy the S397 version). I'm using VR too (Rift).

My verdict: No Fault Found. Thanks for a fine circuit as well as the fine cars @mantasisg :cool:

And hello Mr. R, it's a long time since we raced (I think) rF1 Caterhams!
 
Last edited:
Hi Tony, I've just come home and Mantasisg was right in that I was indeed running an older version of the track. V0.2 is indeed much better and again I think it is very much car specific ....tried out the Cobra which can absorb the bumps no problem. The Brabhams & Mclaren M23's as you say a bit bobbly but then go to the 917's and it will shake your teeth out which suggests as Mantasisg suggested it may be the mod rather than the track.

Yup it was the Caterhams we used to race with the WRRacing boys in RF1. I've switched over to the simracers4life.com crowd. I cant do their weekend stuff but we race fun nights on a wed evening at the moment and are just about to start a wed evening historic championship over the winter months ....all welcome.

J
 
Thank you for your interest, and you'r welcome. If you ever notice some specific spot where you really think that track is surely too bumpy, then the info is appreciated.

It makes sense if stiffening shocks makes track to appear visually smoother, in case if it somehow extends vertical movements of the car, so perhaps it appears smoother if it simply takes more time dor a spring to compress/extend. But on the other hand, maybe it could aid for suspension stiffness and make whole chassis go up/down instead of just wheel to go up/down.

I don't takes 70s F1 to goodwood because I think they are too fast too grippy for it, the track would have benefited from few pocket chicanes for cars like those, but owners never wanted to change it, it is surprising though that they did add once chicane in 50s. I think it adds great separation of flow and gives better rhythm for a track, as it feels more like circuit then, I think every track needs at least one very slow place :D

Caterham is just simply great car for Goodwood.
 
Caterham is not a great car for Goodwood, the circuit is much too open and fast for a car with a low top speed. Cadwell, Oulton, Anglesey (sadly not available for rF2) are the top UK tracks for Caterhams.
 
Tasty text from Doug Nye on the Goodwood Chicane
https://www.goodwood.com/grr/race/h...woods-chicane-hasnt-always-been-so-forgiving/
excerpt:
One of the most distinctive features of the Goodwood Motor Circuit – ever since its introduction in 1952 – has been the famous chicane, occasionally labeled ‘Paddock Bend’.

The original course negotiated the deceptive double-apex Woodcote right-hander at the end of the Lavant ‘Straight’ – which in reality is about as bent as a dog’s hind leg – and then headed towards the pits through a very fast and open left-hand curve. Early-season experience indicated that the faster cars tore through this left-hander, the more their natural trajectory threatened those working in the unprotected pit lane on the infield side of the curve’s exit.

This is why the chicane was introduced, being used for the first time in the March 1952 BARC Members’ Meeting. ‘Autosport’ reported: ‘The inclusion of a ‘snake’ between Woodcote Corner and the grandstand straight added spice to the racing, and put something of a premium on driving ability…’. Inevitably, someone had to be the first to ram the straw-bale and boarding chicanery: ‘Light relief was provided by J. (John) Goodhew who went hedging at the chicane with his red 4½-litre Lagonda and emerged covered from bonnet to tail with most of (BARC Secretary) Johnny Morgan’s prized foliage…’
 
For what it's worth, the track doesn't seem overly bumpy for my setup: single monitor, G25. Quite enjoyable actually. Interesting to learn about the 917. I enjoy the mod too.
 
Thanks for this great track.
It has the feel of the real thing as seen in many videos.
Tried the 1966 BT20, track felt smooth enough, and driving was great on this fast track.
Raced the M6_GT3 with my Sebring setup, full tank, and no problem at all, race was great with a very clean AI, had to trade paint and step on the grass to gain positions, race was fun, harshly fought.

Cheers.
 
Thank you for this excellent build of Goodwood. Have driven the RF1 version for years and missed some of the elevation changes you have modeled. The track guide you included is appreciated and very helpful. The '54 and '67 cars are very cool to drive here. One observation is that the AI seem slow at Fordwater and can be passed with some ease coming off that corner. Seems about the same no matter what the AI strength is set at. Maybe I should be happy for an obvious place to make up positions. Thanks again for your dedicated efforts! BTW as to the bumps, I think it all goes down to a car's compliance. Bumps are far less noticable with the 54 sportscars vs. the 67 variety with stiffer suspension and slicks. The bumps add character and with appropriate cars the circuit is very driveable and fun.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

I was a big fan of older Goodwood mod, and I drove it so much. I respect it's creators, but must say that in terms of accuracy it was incredibly off. I have had to make one track (Nemuno Ziedas) without proper data, and I know what it takes to try to make things reasonably accurate. Thankfully there was a LiDAR data for Goodwood, so it was easy there.

I can't wait for 1967 cars set update to be out. It is really awesome to have 1954 cars car set.

I agree about AI, those were mostly big compromises so AI would stay on road. Since then I have learned quite a bit things about how to model physics and adjust AI per car. I learned that it is the issue of the physics/AI modeling of the car if it drifts out too easily. So in future there will be much less compromised AI fastest patch. Same will go for blocking path, because I keep finding AI opening good opportunities to overtake as they block at some spots, rather than actually defend the position.

Thats true about bumps. There may certainly be bump there and there which shouldn't be in the surface really. But there are also bumps that certainly belongs to the track, so thats the reason why it is not a simple option just to make track smoother. By the way, there are few bumps which I am certain being wrong, and in mesh it is very hard to detect them precisely, because it is something like 1cm dip/bump over 50 meters, will be working on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top