Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Raam Adithyan, Jun 14, 2020.
i've seen that video too, out of memory: He doesn't talk bad about rF2 at all, what he is saying is what i think too and probably many others knowing rF2 and iR. Car handling and realism (tyre and car physics) is great in rF2. In iR, user experience and multiplayer is more mature and stable.
Question is, what is easier: Get the tyre and car physics in IR to the level of rF2? Or get user experience and multiplayer in rF2 as stable and mature as in iR.
Not an easy question but If I would have to bet, I would bet for the latter.
Iracing is not perfect either, it has very good online but it also has its bugs, some inexplicable netcodes and sometimes it has happened to me that it does not load fuel (even if the function is checked) or it changes tires (with the function unchecked).
It was a great race 24 and hopefully collect information to further improve this great simulator
Just the elimination of the pitlane invisible damage car would improve iR for me, I had been away from the old Papyrus/Sierra/iRacing titles for years and couldn't believe the eNascar race that showed the drivers bulling clean through other cars in the pits.
I agree with him. For me, rFactor 2 is way more complete than iRacing in all terms except the competition system (which does not exist atm), but it has some problems that can completely ruin the races.... I don't think it's easy to fix all the bugs and/or freezes because the game is very complete.... you have a lot of features that are not present in all the others simulators, and the sim is much more configurable than any other.... I guess all that features and options mean that the code is big and the game is constantly making a lot of calculations... So I the current issues must be very hard to fix. However, we always look at client side and maybe it's more fault of the server side.... Singleplayer usally runs very smooth no matter how many cars are on track, multiplayer doesn't....
IMHO rf2 will lead the way when the comp system is up and running physics, tyre model and ffb imho are the best on the market, iracing still flogging a 25 yr old g motor that horse is nearly dead as you can only flog it for so long, other sims coming out with new engines.
Its actually a good time to be involved in sim racing.
I think rf2 is great value for money. It is much cheaper than iRacing and if you compare it to what people spend their rigs, the sofware is actually a small part of it.
I often wonder how, and if, the developers make money with this business model.
Also keep in mind that software is never without faults. I work with VERY expensive engineering software and these are not without faults and errors...
I think the biggest money entry should be for developing software for competition teams, rfactor 2 has some parts of rfactor pro, we can see it in the videos that share some points, only some since it is a commercial simulator and we should have a super pc to move rf pro.
The basis of rf1, rf2 and rf pro is that of a physics simulator.
Today it has the best physics and ffb on the market and its graphics have improved markedly since the arrival of studio 397.
PS: hopefully we have rfactor 2 for a while
Wasn't that a Captain Beefheart album?
I thing we got, he just kept saying the same thing
"a bit more real"
he's being too nice to iracing in that statement.
iracing is actually years behind rfactor 2 in terms of physics and FFB.
I agree with you, the ffb, the tire and inertia physics of iracing are bad.
There are many real pilots paid for iracing to speak highly of the simulator
iracing is quite arcade, another thing will be the competition system, although I am also not so interested, I prefer to prepare for championship races, instead of fast races
Pro drivers say it has pretty good physics, but complain about tires. My impression is that the cars are much more polished and consistent. Much more than majority of mods in rF2. ACC and rF2 have better physics, but rF2 is not that consistent.
I believe most of pros are not paid by any means by iRacing.
I think sims still have a long way to go in terms of physics. A race engineer form the 24hr event said that real life setups won't work in rF2. I have also heard the same concerning ACC. I'm not picking on rF2.
In my opinion real life setups will not ever work with games. There is too many things to simulate which affects to car behaviour and our computers can’t handle so many calculations if we want keep games playable.
The simple fact that in the real world NOTHING is rigid, is enough to throw stuff out of the window, and chassis flex is not enough (but a welcome addition). There are other things that obviously can't be taken into account, the most evident difference is aero, there is not a simulated fluid in real time that act on all the bodies, there are formulas applied to aero surfaces. The real setup doesn't work, but how much one should depart from them could be an interesting information.(A certain deviation from the engineer standpoint could be enough to say "real setup doesn't work", but maybe we are talking few clicks here and there, and even then "doesn't work" what does it mean? The car is unable to complete a lap safely ot just is not fast like the real deal?). Context matter a lot.
There are a lot of moving elements in a race car and it is almost mipsoble to faithfully simulate them all, not even the great F1 simulators that invest millions of dollars are at 1: 1 scale. Likewise, it is very useful for pilots to know tracks, routes, concentration.
I agree, I think the major difficulty is modeling the aero. Aero is very non linear, so would require quite a big lookup table containing various speeds, rakes, rideheights, angles of attack, etc. This can not be implemented in the current physics sheet of rf2, if I am correct.
I do think that the mechanical part (suspension kinematics, dampers, drivetrain) can by modeled and simulated quite acurately. Traditional commercial vehicle dynamics software focusses on this as well. This might also be the reason that simple non-aero cars get a lot of praise for their realism.
The tyre model in rf2 might be on par or even better than some proffesional vehicle dynamics software. rfPro probably the benchmark here.
Also I dont thinks s397 get all the info from the manufacturer to properly replicate a car. I wonder how realistic it would be if they could accurately get all the paramaters rf2 currently uses.
I'm very interested to know if there are smaller race teams or even OEMs that modelled their car and use rf2 for simulations, and what their conclusions are. It seems a powerfull piece of software. And very entertainable as well.
Not an Album title,but you mean eventualy the title "Batchainpuller"...
Separate names with a comma.