Now THIS is a great summary of OUR user experience

So much testing and tweaking. Most semi-advanced users would still give up trying to get a track and car into dev mod then creating aiw.
Some struggle out of principle unpacking and packing a file just to update a decent camera file.

I am glad I am a determined individual as it is super rewarding when its dialed in.
Then you share your work with someone and it doesn't fly with their preferred settings. Geez!

Its an open sim with a Frankenstein stable of content that makes me miserable ... but I love it!
I think I may need professional help LOL
 
mantasisg said:
It is strange to hear that no one disagrees with his rF2 opinions, because there are at least some bits that are less agreeable for sure.
Click to expand...

Not everyone reads everything, and often people just don't bother replying. This thread is based on a video I'm not interested in watching, so I'm less inclined to post. But here I am haha :p

St54KeV said:
I think, what he really meant with all the rF3 method is, that the current problems with rF2 are so huge, that it would basically be the "same" amount of work cutting the current direction and starting of new with a fresh rF3. The things that are broken (tire physics and UI mainly) really need to be recoded from ground up.
Click to expand...

These things, tyre physics especially, get named and simplified (in people's minds) and take on a life of their own. The tyre physics aren't so broken as to need a ground-up rewrite - I'm afraid that's just a silly notion. Much of the unrealistic behaviour (which is relatively minor to begin with, in fact) can be, and has been with the most recent car release, corrected without changing a single line of physics code. That's not indicative of an underlying or inherent issue. Now there are definitely missing 'features' in the tyres (be it lack of physical damage from low pressures, no changing track temperature, heck let's even throw in no brake disc heat transfer to the wheel/tyre while we're here - we are all familiar with the list) but those things are easily describable - and what does that mean? It means they could be implemented, in a somewhat simplified fashion (but certainly good enough to fool all but the most discerning of drivers/engineers), on top of what we already have. No rewrite necessary.

I mentioned tyre pressure. How often do you read "just run the lowest possible, because rF2 is broken and that gives the most grip"? Again it becomes its own truth. But that's not actually wrong - lower pressure does give more grip. And nearly all cars being driven this way (most complaints are about DLC or at least S397 cars) have realistically mandated minimum pressures. So "the lowest pressure" isn't a stupid low pressure at all. But it gets written about like people are running around on deflated tyres and doing super fast laptimes. I'm not saying that's not possible, but the cars don't let you even try that with their parameters. Logically there could be detrimental wear with lower pressures, but very few bother to actually try and test for that, and unfortunately we only have a single tyre wear figure (as a percentage) so if there is uneven wear happening we can't see it - but the model does support it. So it's mostly an unknown, but people assume and run with it.

The UI?

Kahel said:
Just look at what S397 were able to produce in years compare to a few passionate modders in a few months... it's quite revealing...
Click to expand...

This sort of comment abounds, suggesting 'all' they did was put a new UI on top of existing code. It was much more complex than that, and they didn't exactly hide that fact - it got spelled out across multiple roadmaps. Does the UI suck? Oh yes. But don't pretend they spent 4 years designing and making it - the basic (broken) layout was shown 5 years ago.

Plus everyone knows they worked on another game in this time. So then they get criticised for spending time on that. Well you can't eat your cake and have it still - if they spent time doing that (and, quite presumably, some other things, perhaps including further rF2 development we can't see and aren't aware of) then that's obviously less time on what we can see.

You can bet they see all this talk, here and elsewhere. Do they choose to ignore the criticism and do nothing? Why, because that sounds like a good idea when you're running a business? Does that really make sense to anyone?


Disclaimer of sorts: In Apr 2013 I suggested a simple single parameter to add to the tyres to allow for more realistic wet driving lines, by making the rubbered line more slippery when wet. So don't think I'm happy with how everything works. It's not about 'Team rF2' vs 'Team anti-rF2' - each issue has its own identity, and we all know rF2 does enough well or we literally wouldn't be here. The multitude of issues needs to be kept in perspective though, and not just be continually piled onto with little thought. The last (only) EH video I watched lacked logical thought or proof, and I'm not interested in rants.
 
Good feedback. I agree with game becoming more user friendly. The UI points were spot on. Takes 5 more clicks/page changes to achieve a car select or track change, where in old ui user did in maybe 2 pages max.

Most users who have been here since game came out, are just questioning time. Simple as that.
Are we gonna be here in 2030 talking about the same sound engine from 2010 not being updated?

keeping issues in perspective kinda goes out the door once users are labeled "paying customers". The game isn't a free mod platform like rf1 and early rf2 days were. I believe we all want to see this sim rocket to the moon, thats why we continue to play with these issues, and wait. Users just want to see a desire to fix things.
 
@Lazza Okay so first, maybe go watch that video. Yes it lacks prooves, but its not a rant, it is an experience and opinion and we all know his described situations, none of them are devised. So, I´m a little confused by your comment. At first it seemed to me as you are defending S397, then when reading it a second time it sounds as, in general, you are also one of the very frustrated people out there. Eg. "tire physics isnt a complete overhaul" - Well, isnt that even worse? Do you know any sim or any real life racing series, where teams setup their cars tire pressure at the bottom limit of the regulation? Usually tire manufacturers have optimal hot tire pressure ranges for each compound at which it produces the most amount of grip and thats the range cars are operated around. So no matter what, setting a in sim hard coded minimum you cant go below isnt a solution to the problem. Eg. for ACC I had a huge Excel sheet for my car I used in a series and for every track I practiced for I made a table with air/track temps and cold pressures that lead to perfect hot pressures in a race and qualifying situation. That took me 2-3 hrs each track and it prooved well in the races because no matter the weather I had not to care about tire pressures.
So there is a reason esport teams run lowest pressures and use setup hacks like disconnected rear ARB + lowest wing on GT cars for example. The feeling of "This feels like its driving like its IRL counter part" is almost never there in rF2. There are so many problems...

One I actually find even embarassing is the way cars behave and look in broadcast. S397 does so much for esports and pro championships and broadcast, but actually watching it is such a bad experience because you can immediately tell its not real. As a counter example take iRacing. While not looking the best graphics wise, it absolutely smashes every other sim the way it looks on a broadcast. The colors and especially the way cars move over the track is astonishing real. Good example for priotisations, not to mention the desaster of the virtual Le Mans 24h last year...

So you say they dont ignore this. Please give a good source for that. How do they read this for years and do nothing, not even acknowledge it? That basically is what ignorance means to me. And i´d love to be proven wrong here.

Of course this is not a pro and anti rF2 war. Its more a "It´s enough" thread, kind a rant? - Yeah I try to stay obejctive, which of course is hard with frustration building up for a decade now in a industry we all love, no matter what sim, hardware or background. At the end we all love racing and we all want rF2 to improve
 
Lazza said:
Not everyone reads everything, and often people just don't bother replying. This thread is based on a video I'm not interested in watching, so I'm less inclined to post. But here I am haha :p
Click to expand...

Being able to intuitively ignore and skip information that is not going to benefit you in any way, while being able to not miss interesting and valuable information is absolutely a talent.



I am personally mostly interested in how Ermin Hamidovic perceives simulation fundamentally, what is wrong and what is right, how much knowledge they have... That is number one interest in all of simracing influencers I have ever paid attention to. Perhaps the only one there is that hits the target is Neils Heusinkveld, but he isn't focusing on that continuously, just happens to create something interesting from time to time. Others like Broadbent who could have a say especially after now he is getting lots of offers in real life car seats, would never say anything because he is too chill, just have fun type of guy, and I am also sure he has not much knowledge about how things actually work. It is also interesting to find real world drivers that does a bit of insight on simracing like N.Thiim, or Nik Romano with his videos on iR vs AC and about Project Cars 2 later. But must admit while they great at driving and knows for sure how cars behave, it is unclear what they are actually looking for in simulation - is it depth of realism ? just car being realistically stable and fast ? just car being overdrivable ? overdrivble like irl, or just overdrivable ? whats their tolerance for realism ? And other questions I ask when their expressions does not align with my perceptions or they doesn't even touch the subjects :D I think it would be so great if some engineers would give some independent ideas of some things that goes on in simulation, I bet some could come up with easy to understand and simple, but accurate and well measured comments on many subjects.
 
St54KeV said:
Do you know any sim or any real life racing series, where teams setup their cars tire pressure at the bottom limit of the regulation?
Click to expand...

Formula 1. And not just in recent years.

@St54KeV * here's a story I found on a search, interesting because it would seem to somewhat contradict widely held expectations: https://www.supercars.com/news/championship/tyres-under-pressure/

St54KeV said:
Okay so first, maybe go watch that video. Yes it lacks prooves, but its not a rant, it is an experience and opinion and we all know his described situations, none of them are devised. So, I´m a little confused by your comment. At first it seemed to me as you are defending S397, then when reading it a second time it sounds as, in general, you are also one of the very frustrated people out there.
Click to expand...

I may watch the video at some point, but I wasn't commenting on it. So I wasn't calling it a rant - how could I? I haven't seen it.

As for working out what side I'm on - that's the point. I don't have to pick one.
 
Last edited:
While I agree with much of what was said, I think some things where a little uncalled for. Just a few month ago Ermin was chummy af with Marcel, like he was his best buddy and biggest fan, and now he's bagging the team out hard and basically suggesting they should be fired, all for a video that was made probably just to gin up some engagment in his comment section. I think that was a bit rough.

I think Ermin has a bit of an inflated sense of self-importance in regards to his place in the community. He talks as if he is some kind of arbitur of truth who has been appointed to guide the industry in the correct direction under his discerning and watchful eye. We all have very strong opinions and it's fine to voice them, but he speaks as if he is an industry insider of sorts with special knowledge and insight that we don't have. I work in a very small company, and I know that there are things that we WANT to do, and things that we HAVE to do to keep the lights on, outsiders have no clue whatsoever about the things we need do to keep the thing humming along. Ermin's analysis was a bit simplified and needlessly harsh in my opinion.

As far as all the usability type stuff, yes I agree to a point, but Jesus Christ no offence to anyone but how much do you need to dumb it down for people? Is it really that hard to set up a race, configure the controls to your liking etc? rF2 is not a game for the masses, it is a product for enthusiasts and that's what makes it unique. If it gets too mainstream it'll lose much of it's flavour. Yes mucking around in JSON files is a bit much, but seriously how often does an average user need to do that? I certainly don't. There is so much functionality built into the UI, you can do a lot more things than so many other titles, and it really is not that hard to navigate. It's actually easier to use than a lot of racing games if I'm honest, when is the last time you tried to set up a race in Forza? And the UI in AC? Give me a break, terrible.

That all being said, I too get frustrated, and I really hope that S397 has enough resources to start taking a unilateral approach to the develoment and begin working on fundamental physics updates like the transmission model.

Edit: I do actually like Ermin and appciate his honesty and passion. I'm over content creators that just praise eveything and don't properly critique things, so in that respect Ermin is a breath of fresh air, even if he does use the same words too often. I do think though that this time he just went slightly too hard.
 
Last edited:
Juergen-BY said:
I`m with you, partially, but thats simply not true. AI can overtake using slipstream. Its just a matter of settings (all of them) in the HDV of the car, the RCD file of the car and the AIW file of the track.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. The underlying logic for slip streaming is bare bones at best. Studio 397 have even acknowledged this themselves on multiple occasions (even as far as having to comment about it during a live Race Department interview when Le Man was released). It is one of the most controversial topics discussed because the issue is so widely known and nothing has ever been done about it.

May I remind you of this video:



Leman is a perfect example of where the logic is flawed. You will regularly see LMP1/LMP2 behind GT3 breaking every 0.5 second because they do not have the ability to intelligently move over. It is even worse for the same class types (a train comes to mind).
 
@green serpent I think it all came into play, when EH was involved in one of the higher eSports Teams for a bigger event. He learnt about the flaws of the setups and physics and then realized how broken it actually is and how unrealistic you need to drive the car in order to be faster than others. He has an extensive video about this
Of course everyone has different experiences but i would assume everyone that is driving an IRL road car or have driven cars on the limit on tracks (thats not a priviledge, everyone can do it on track days) or in faster karting has a general idea of a cars limit and how it behaves, of course often lacking detail knowledge or the "real" limit of the machine. So i would say, yes, also non-race drivers can comment on how cars behave in simulatiors.

green serpent said:
As far as all the usability type stuff, yes I agree to a point, but Jesus Christ no offence to anyone but how much do you need to dumb it down for people? Is it really that hard to set up a race, configure the controls to your liking etc? rF2 is not a game for the masses, it is a product for enthusiasts and that's what makes it unique. If it gets too mainstream it'll lose much of it's flavour. Yes mucking around in JSON files is a bit much, but seriously how often does an average user need to do that? I certainly don't. There is so much functionality built into the UI, you can do a lot more things than so many other titles, and it really is not that hard to navigate. It's actually easier to use than a lot of racing games if I'm honest, when is the last time you tried to set up a race in Forza? And the UI in AC? Give me a break, terrible.
Click to expand...
YES, it is that hard. I do have many friends who I introduced into sim racing, of course also showing them rF2. And they failed HARD actually using it, eg. not being able to find certain things in the new UI. We came to a point where I need to come over, set everything up for them to just run an AI race. Only to see later, they quit rF2 because of the bad user experience. And those users were younger people in their 20s, a generation absolutely up to date with using computers. S397 are literally loosing users because of that. And im pretty sure those users would have invested money into DLCs. The situation with content EH described is exactly what I experienced with friends. Those friends now own the rF2 base game, nothing more and using other sims as dailys.
Regarding the UI in AC: Literally no one is using it since Content Manager is on the market for couple of years now, keeping the sim alive. Which shows how important such stuff really is.
And to be honest, S397 does NOT advertise rF2 as a niche niche market platform. Have a look at this text.
This is the very first paragraph on their steam store page:
"rFactor 2 is a realistic, easily extendable racing simulation from Studio 397. It offers the latest in vehicle and race customization, great graphics, outstanding multiplayer and the height of racing realism. rFactor 2 features mixed class road racing with ultra realistic dynamics, an immersive sound environment and stunning graphics, perfect for top-level esports and a rich single-player experience."

"Outstanding multiplayer, stunning graphics, rich single-player experience". Come on. I would even consider this a lie
 
Last edited:
St54KeV said:
Interesting read, thanks for this. But this sounds more like a misbuild tire and teams noticing that trying to bypass its problems. Isnt that exactly what we have in rf2? :D
Do you have sources for the F1 tire topic?
Click to expand...

I don't have a link, but there's a minimum pressure and teams have been using all sorts of tricks to get lower for more grip. And commentators (ex F1 drivers) talk about lower pressure giving more grip as a very matter of fact thing.

Ultimately there are minimum pressures to stop teams going lower, which they're doing for a reason - and it's not to go slower :D

When I searched I think I saw some similar rules in NASCAR as well, though perhaps exclusive to some events or track types.

A bigger contact patch will always give more raw grip, but there are structural and heat issues by going too low. rF2 doesn't do either of those (nor extra rolling resistance, I believe) so we don't see the downside. And wet weather is only half baked so no detriment there either.

The supercars I found interesting because the mandated 17psi is too high for balanced wear. If you had a mod of that series and saw 17 at the bottom end, you'd probably think running those pressures for fast times is an exploit. But in reality the tyres were happier closer to 10psi.
 
Not long ago I was interested in reading this, it does not bring anything mindblowingly new or surprising, but it adds some better clue of how pressure relates with "things". Here is an interesting article about what Mercedes technical director James Allison said about upcoming larger diameter F1 wheels and lower profile tires: https://www.racefans.net/2020/06/04...ake-f1-cars-up-to-two-seconds-slower-allison/

He says:
“That sort of balloon-type tyre that you see on our cars today and have seen on racing cars for decades is a really good solution for going quickly. It allows the tyre to transmit the forces to the road really effectively, it’s light, it acts as a good suspending element so it gives the driver good ride quality, allows the forces to be taken at quite low inflation pressures, which means you get more grip, et cetera."

So what can be understood from this is that inevitably lower profile tires will make them use higher pressures, which will result in less grip. This means lower grip does INDEED mean better grip, so rF2 is correct about it. But... it also means that too low pressures depending on how stiff the tire construction is and what is its geometry can lead to tire not being able to deal with the forces anymore - thus it can't do it's job properly despite having more grip... I guess it can go more complicated when taken into account each tires construction and examining individual details for each. But one thing must be clear now - lower pressure more grip, but too low pressure means tire looses it's structural rigidity, it is that simple.

The article also mentions that these quotes of Allison comes from some video... I'll try to find it.

Easy find:

Must admit it is surprising, I used to think that lower profile tire would result in lower slip angles and higher peaks, thus more on rail, higher grip - more iRacing type of handling. But perhaps it is not entirely the whole case, and perhaps they could have had that with taller sidewalls too, it is hard to understand the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
mantasisg said:
Not long ago I was interested in reading this, it does not bring anything mindblowingly new or surprising, but it adds some better clue of how pressure relates with "things". Here is an interesting article about what Mercedes technical director James Allison said about upcoming larger diameter F1 wheels and lower profile tires: https://www.racefans.net/2020/06/04...ake-f1-cars-up-to-two-seconds-slower-allison/

He says:
“That sort of balloon-type tyre that you see on our cars today and have seen on racing cars for decades is a really good solution for going quickly. It allows the tyre to transmit the forces to the road really effectively, it’s light, it acts as a good suspending element so it gives the driver good ride quality, allows the forces to be taken at quite low inflation pressures, which means you get more grip, et cetera."

So what can be understood from this is that inevitably lower profile tires will make them use higher pressures, which will result in less grip. This means lower grip does INDEED mean better grip, so rF2 is correct about it. But... it also means that too low pressures depending on how stiff the tire construction is and what is its geometry can lead to tire not being able to deal with the forces anymore - thus it can't do it's job properly despite having more grip... I guess it can go more complicated when taken into account each tires construction and examining individual details for each. But one thing must be clear now - lower pressure more grip, but too low pressure means tire looses it's structural rigidity, it is that simple.

The article also mentions that these quotes of Allison comes from some video... I'll try to find it.
Click to expand...

It's quite amusing to be honest - and Lazza already made it very clear - that the supposed lower pressures in RF2 leads to more grip all the time is so misleading, because the 140KPa in cars like GT3 are the normal pressure for optimal tires up to temperature. One of those things I heard people ramble on about being broken but it's actually not what's broken. Maybe people are feeling or were feeling these tires to be so low because the inherent behavior of some slip angles achieved are those of a tire that seems more deflated and not so much on the edge when it comes to quick reactions from it, and overly flexible...
 
green serpent said:
While I agree with much of what was said, I think some things where a little uncalled for. Just a few month ago Ermin was chummy af with Marcel, like he was his best buddy and biggest fan, and now he's bagging the team out hard and basically suggesting they should be fired, all for a video that was made probably just to gin up some engagment in his comment section. I think that was a bit rough.

I think Ermin has a bit of an inflated sense of self-importance in regards to his place in the community. He talks as if he is some kind of arbitur of truth who has been appointed to guide the industry in the correct direction under his discerning and watchful eye. We all have very strong opinions and it's fine to voice them, but he speaks as if he is an industry insider of sorts with special knowledge and insight that we don't have. I work in a very small company, and I know that there are things that we WANT to do, and things that we HAVE to do to keep the lights on, outsiders have no clue whatsoever about the things we need do to keep the thing humming along. Ermin's analysis was a bit simplified and needlessly harsh in my opinion.

As far as all the usability type stuff, yes I agree to a point, but Jesus Christ no offence to anyone but how much do you need to dumb it down for people? Is it really that hard to set up a race, configure the controls to your liking etc? rF2 is not a game for the masses, it is a product for enthusiasts and that's what makes it unique. If it gets too mainstream it'll lose much of it's flavour. Yes mucking around in JSON files is a bit much, but seriously how often does an average user need to do that? I certainly don't. There is so much functionality built into the UI, you can do a lot more things than so many other titles, and it really is not that hard to navigate. It's actually easier to use than a lot of racing games if I'm honest, when is the last time you tried to set up a race in Forza? And the UI in AC? Give me a break, terrible.

That all being said, I too get frustrated, and I really hope that S397 has enough resources to start taking a unilateral approach to the develoment and begin working on fundamental physics updates like the transmission model.

Edit: I do actually like Ermin and appciate his honesty and passion. I'm over content creators that just praise eveything and don't properly critique things, so in that respect Ermin is a breath of fresh air, even if he does use the same words too often. I do think though that this time he just went slightly too hard.
Click to expand...
What?!?
Are you comparing AC UI with rf2 UI?
Any sim has much better UI, and so does vanilla AC.
Sure rf2 offers more configuration and setup possibilities than other sims but that's not worth much for average user. Because most stuff is non intuitive.
Even experienced users after hundreds of hours in rf2 discover new possibilities because these are either hidden or placed somewhere nobody would think of looking.
People with years of experience in rf2 tend to forget that.
Btw because rf2 UI, old and new is super slow hence discourages users to experiment, browse
the options. Another reason for features to be left undiscovered and users frustrated.
 
Even without starting to be picky about new UI, and trying to seriously become back seat UI designer, the most basic thing to say (and Ermin talked about it).... WHY ALL THOSE SEPARATE WINDOWS ? Why all that scrolling ?

Without barely changing anything in that cursed UI, it could be possible made to be 50% better than it is now.

1. There is some weird double face thing of this UI. When you have to choose cars and tracks. Then there is one under where you choose almost exactly same, but now there you also get an access to choose game session settings.

2. Then you go into game session settings. And you have to shuffle between three different windows, when it can fit in one window. You know, like in old UI ? Although in old UI there was a problem of much information blended in together, it could have been simply rearranged better on same window, used some more highlighting spaces, or color coding or anything, just to be easier to set and organize your attention when you have to do it quickly. Separating into different windows may have helped with focus, but it also didn't as you may close window while having forgotten something anyway, and now it is away completely, and you are focused more on navigating between windows, than what settings to make. I think it helps in new UI, when you come familiar with settings from older UI already.

3. Then you get into garage setup screens. Again too many separate windows, annoying scrolling. It could just be more compact. Old UI used to be perhaps slightly too squeezed, but it actually even had spectator window at he same time always present ! And also chat/console, although super uncomfortable.

Why all that clicking, are there plan to add adds to UI pages, to generate more clicks ? Are we farming bitcoins to someone with this UI ? :D I also believe it could load faster, but perhaps it is because I have relatively lots of content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top