Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by 88mphTim, Sep 25, 2013.
definitely, the AI still struggle with the banked ovals but brianza is rather old
Have you had any conversations with anyone from Midlands Texas? Why not give it a try? They might find this interesting!
The only thing you can do right now is up the speed % and down the aggression %, which would reduce the side by side.
The paths need some work on the historic tracks, I feel.
Does anyone have any negative feedback on the Howston profiles information? Any advice on presentation? For example, need graphs for anything? Anything you think important that is not mentioned at all?
I have a big problem with the Howston. The track loads fine and can see the cockpit down in the camera. But when i press race it crashes to desktop and it does it with both Howstons... What can i do?
this cars are very difficult to handle in conditions like low speed and/or wet track and I did not feel it at low speeds. it have unpredictable behavior and not manageable. always at low speeds.
at high speeds, in the large radius curves, with high traveling speed, it is fantastic.
Overall I like the profile a lot. Nice and clean. Details of the needed tyre temps and expected driving style are a big help to people with little to no real life experience (like me). The driving tips on the F1 is very helpful.
In general I would like to see a torque&bhp by revolutions graph for all cars. Partly just because it's kinda cool, but also because it makes the power band very obvious to everyone. I think the graphs also give good characterisation to a vehicle as well (i.e. you can see if a car has good low down torque or has a really peaky bhp curve). And it's something I remember looking at as a kid playing Gran Turismo
The profiles are a bit "wall of text" - perhaps the tables could have boarders (or even be graphs?).
I just took a look at all the profiles and the presentation of the cars and tracks.
Think you couldn't have done it much better. Thumbs up there. It's clean, very clear and looks also good.
Nothing to confuse at all, which is IMO the most important thing.
I've been told that there's a Singapore track causing problems, and I've yet to hear back whether it's a wider issue.
I always miss power to weight ratio information as it is a very easy way to judge the ability of a car.
That goes for the rest of the cars profiles too.
Just accidentally came across this and thought was cool so thought you guys might agree if you haven't already seen....
An on the subject of profile presentation I think it is perfect and recommend care if going to add graphs especially if just cool because will be less clean like it is now and which is good. Any other relevant description info might be nice also but only if makes sense, like maybe one sentence explaining difference between these two cars and why one open and other close top but again only if makes sense and adds to interest.
+1 and please include Imperial (lb.-ft.) for the torque as well as the metric that is there now.
The more info the better, both engineering facts and stats as well as the driving tips/advice.
I wonder how many people have ever driven a RWD car with bias-ply tires (I learned to drive on one!)? Let alone one with gigantic power and low weight like these?
That being said, there seems to be a consistent strangeness with lack of rear grip that affects all cars in rF2. Shows up here more because of the nature of the car, but I think just a bit of the squirreliness of the Howston's could be tamed by a general fix to that issue. Not sure if it's a recognized issue, but I feel like all the ISI cars are amazingly well simulated except for, especially low-speed, rear grip. It's slightly too easy to break the rears loose compared to what "feels right" for the rest of the handling characteristics of the cars. Maybe it's a track grip issue, too? Off-track is especially exaggerated if you want to experience it, which is why I think it may be a combination of track grip settings and car rather than all car.
Almost missed this. Good one, Nikos. +1
Hmmm, just did an "ABC" test to prove my point, since it was bothering me after I typed it.
Green tracks, hopped in the G6, basic version and headed out of the pits to lap.
Aintree - too little grip to be realistic. Car drives like it's on frosted road or slight ice. Brings out the worst in the G6's tail-happy nature.
Blackwood - too much grip. In addition to the washboard bumpiness, the track feels like it's paved with a super coarse material that would consume tires very quickly.
Croft - feels perfect. The G6 is a beast, but controllable in the expected manner. As expected, feels3 got that right, too.
I will know know that I can use these three tracks to test handling...until Aintree and Blackwood get fixed/updated! Try it, you'll be amazed at how the car goes from almost undriveable in corners to feeling more like an historic F1 anfd then to it's normal self with zero adjustments to the car set-up or rF2 along the way.
If we get the real Lola name, will we also get real Lola bodywork to go with it? Not that it matters too much, I think the Howstons look great as is...
Driving the Howstons has been a wonderful experience. Apparently I've been waiting for them, as I haven't been hooked on rF2 until now.
To train my right foot, I concentrated on the short tracks (Lime Rock, Mores). Squeezing the throttle and avoiding the tank slappers and braking early enough and leaving a little extra room for the AI so I don't rear-end them (remember when the complaint would be the AI rear-ended us? doesn't happen now!). After a lazy day of jumping in & out between bouts of browsing the web, I was able to run AI at 100%, take pole position, and win.
What I've noticed:
1) ISI's AI still doesn't like driving slideways. If the rear steps out, they'll lift rather than powerslide. It's probably the largest evidence that you're driving against a computer rather than a person.
2) Engine sounds are still lacking something, the burble and crackle, particularly at idle and off-throttle.
3) The gauges are ugly.
4) The mirror is wonderful.
5) Interesting how the driveline slippage is present. I've slowed my throttle application after shifting (which is probably realistic) and usually it works.
6) The 1965 tires feel more like they are 1963 or 64 than 65 and the 1968 tires feel like 1965. In other words, they all slide a little more than seems correct, but not by a huge amount.
^ Yes, please give us "Smiths" 60's gauges. Pretty please...with sugar on top.
This issue is a weird one and it is related to certain problem tracks and/or certain problem mods. I first saw it with the GP79 mod and the chappielike conversion of the NSC06 mod. As soon as I got rid of the "ational stockcar mod" (that's the name HE gave it) the prob with GP79 CTD'ing took care of itself. There are a handful of mods I have tried out that have caused similar issues.
If a track has major issues- like the AI leave the pits and head straight for a wall, or the realroad doesn't work, or it is just generally very low quality, best to avoid probs and uninstall it right away. Those are the tracks that cause CTD at OTHER tracks. If a mod has grammatical issues with the mod name, it is generally low quality, looks like a quickie conversion or comes from unknown or dubious origins- let some other sucker (like me) test it and b0rk his installation so you don't have to! I'm used to reinstalling rF2.
I don't understand how this all works, but it's a thing. With rF2 it's a good idea to stick with the better quality mods with known good origins. I have gotten goos stuff off other sites, I have also gotten prob mods. I have gotten good stuff from the ISI forums... I have also gotten prob mods. It's hard to tell with this stuff and we all (modders included) are still learning.
Separate names with a comma.