green serpent
Registered
Edit: Just drove* (I've got drones on my mind today!)
Hello to anyone who finds themselves lurking in this area of the forum.
I just tried AMS2 for the first time and then straight after drove rF2, very similar cars (80s F1 car).
*DISCLAIMER: I'm not an expert, subjective thoughts only, something something about how making games is hard and each sim suits different people, track models could be different etc etc ad nauseum.*
rF2 objectively drives better. End of story. I'm not talking about feel, I'm talking, the actual physical car driving over a road surface drives better. How can I put this... cars need to do certain things suspension wise so you can control them, they need to actually ride okay. rF2 does this, AMS2 does not (well at least not as well). rF2 is simply so much SMOOTHER. AMS2's ride is so "crashy".
I've got two competing ideas in my head. Either the Madness engine is ten times as complex as the rF2 engine, and there's all kinds of forcess going on that make the cars skitish as hell and very unstable... OR the rF2 engine is far more advanced with much more compliance in the suspension tires and chassis, which makes the cars actually ride properly.
Honestly, driving AMS reminded me of a time when one of my mates lowered his ute to the point of there being practically no suspension, the thing simply could not ride properly, did it have grip, yes it had plenty of grip, it had loads of 'feel', but it drove like crap and was hard to keep on the road because it simply was poorly engineered (or not engineed at all).
Driving in rF2 by comparison (even in an 80s F1) felt like a time when I drove a Lexus LS400 on some winding bumpy back roads, the suspension absorbed much of the bumps and kept the chassis stable, and as a result it was fast as hell and very controllable.
It's almost a sim racing contradiction that the most complex sim is also the easiest to control, the common thought is the opposite. I think that rF2 has the suspension/chassis and tires so sorted that they actually do the job they are meant to do and keep the weight of the car and all the load tranfer under control.
Obviously I am preacing to the choir over here in the rF2 forum, but seriously, are these people who praise other sims actually playing rF2? This is probably a very pointless post, and AMS2 is probably low hanging fruit, but I just get frustrated daily when certain quality things aren't as succesful as they should be. Most very good things seem to be hidden gems, and for some reason the masses just don't get it.
I still liked AMS2 by the way, I thought it was alright. Who knows, rF2 could be the most fake sim and I am just delusional and in my own bumble reinforcing my own beliefs. Whatever the reason, rF2's cars physically drive better (fake or not), and as a result feel better to drive.
Next up is ACC so prepare for that rant.
Okay, I'll get back in my hole now.
Hello to anyone who finds themselves lurking in this area of the forum.
I just tried AMS2 for the first time and then straight after drove rF2, very similar cars (80s F1 car).
*DISCLAIMER: I'm not an expert, subjective thoughts only, something something about how making games is hard and each sim suits different people, track models could be different etc etc ad nauseum.*
rF2 objectively drives better. End of story. I'm not talking about feel, I'm talking, the actual physical car driving over a road surface drives better. How can I put this... cars need to do certain things suspension wise so you can control them, they need to actually ride okay. rF2 does this, AMS2 does not (well at least not as well). rF2 is simply so much SMOOTHER. AMS2's ride is so "crashy".
I've got two competing ideas in my head. Either the Madness engine is ten times as complex as the rF2 engine, and there's all kinds of forcess going on that make the cars skitish as hell and very unstable... OR the rF2 engine is far more advanced with much more compliance in the suspension tires and chassis, which makes the cars actually ride properly.
Honestly, driving AMS reminded me of a time when one of my mates lowered his ute to the point of there being practically no suspension, the thing simply could not ride properly, did it have grip, yes it had plenty of grip, it had loads of 'feel', but it drove like crap and was hard to keep on the road because it simply was poorly engineered (or not engineed at all).
Driving in rF2 by comparison (even in an 80s F1) felt like a time when I drove a Lexus LS400 on some winding bumpy back roads, the suspension absorbed much of the bumps and kept the chassis stable, and as a result it was fast as hell and very controllable.
It's almost a sim racing contradiction that the most complex sim is also the easiest to control, the common thought is the opposite. I think that rF2 has the suspension/chassis and tires so sorted that they actually do the job they are meant to do and keep the weight of the car and all the load tranfer under control.
Obviously I am preacing to the choir over here in the rF2 forum, but seriously, are these people who praise other sims actually playing rF2? This is probably a very pointless post, and AMS2 is probably low hanging fruit, but I just get frustrated daily when certain quality things aren't as succesful as they should be. Most very good things seem to be hidden gems, and for some reason the masses just don't get it.
I still liked AMS2 by the way, I thought it was alright. Who knows, rF2 could be the most fake sim and I am just delusional and in my own bumble reinforcing my own beliefs. Whatever the reason, rF2's cars physically drive better (fake or not), and as a result feel better to drive.
Next up is ACC so prepare for that rant.
Okay, I'll get back in my hole now.
Last edited:
