He also acknowledged that with the GTE cars "it's not just a BoP issue". So it seems they are on it, which is great news.
OK, what has happened to rF2?
- Thread starter davehenrie
- Start date
Ronnie
Registered
Problem is that these cars were out for a looooooong time. First release? Borked. 1st update? Meh. 2nd update? Outrage on forums and discord, mostly from guys from VEC. 3rd update? Borked what wasn't messed up before this much. Current state? Broken. Let's find out how their 4th attempt to improve BoP "issues" goes. I'm literally holding my breath!
Last edited:
Ronnie
Registered
Not the right kind of "BoP" (placed in quotation marks on purpose) and only VEC members have access to those. But guess you don't know what is going on with those cars.
davehenrie
Registered
I assumed VEC is helping S397 by being official testers. A good bonus for VEC participants and S397 gets access to dozens of EXPERIENCED sim drivers. Good plan methinks.
I only remember the days before LeMans update causing outrage from the alien speed sim racers. I remember reading letter to the studio guys posted on Twitter. They've (s397) never really acknowledged the full scope of issues before now. Previous updates were only "real" BoP updates. I want these cars fixed as badly as anyone and sure maybe it shouldn't have taken 6 plus months, but they said they fixing it now and call me crazy but i believe they will.
AMillward
Registered
I'm part of the VEC broadcast team and drive the cars often to prepare for broadcast so I know enough of what's going on
Boldaussie
Registered
I'm a bit confused/bemused. Inertia bug. Lack of inertia? Can't spin wheels? On what planet does a lack of inertia in the drive train prevent the wheels from being able to be spun from a standing start? Drag racers would be queueing up for that secret...LOL A lack of inertia would promote breaking loose as the engine power is not reduced by having to turn flywheels and clutch mass, etc so if that was really the case it would be the opposite, too easy to spin wheels on a standing start. Being able to do that relies on the amount of power (torque) you have under your right foot and clutch co-ordination, not how fast or slow the engine revs increase/drop, on/off throttle... so maybe they reduced the torque and that's altered your clutch/throttle sync and causing the issues. It is certainly not a lack of drive train/engine assembly inertia.
As for the bop, GTE all drive differently, have different driving style needs and as a NON alien, I personally find them quite even overall, track dependant for strengths and weaknesses between them. Anyone who used them pre BOP and was faster then of course will complain bitterly, human nature. I do agree that they are flawed as on the same track one can run lowest setting wing and another runs mid +. Gt3's some use tyres harder than others, lock is an issue and others, and 1 in particular is dead easy to drive fast compared to the others, but not necessarily "faster" .
Point is, none are game breakers, they just annoy the hell out of some people. If that's all you have to complain about, think yourself very lucky in a changing world
As for the bop, GTE all drive differently, have different driving style needs and as a NON alien, I personally find them quite even overall, track dependant for strengths and weaknesses between them. Anyone who used them pre BOP and was faster then of course will complain bitterly, human nature. I do agree that they are flawed as on the same track one can run lowest setting wing and another runs mid +. Gt3's some use tyres harder than others, lock is an issue and others, and 1 in particular is dead easy to drive fast compared to the others, but not necessarily "faster" .
Point is, none are game breakers, they just annoy the hell out of some people. If that's all you have to complain about, think yourself very lucky in a changing world
Fábio Martins
Registered
You`re very poetic, but yes you`re confused. You`re not in a church. Nobody here is trying to change the world, so stop trying to be some kind of a priest.
People are complaining about a broken game, with some major problems, like the over processed and over simplistic sounds, the A.I and other problems like this one on this thread.
Telling everybody "hey it`s not really a problem", will not make this sim better. In fact with the time, hiding problems, will make this sim worse than the competition, because they - the competition won`t stop to evolve.
It would be very good for Studio 397, if every single week, a problem was discussed here. It`s material for them. It`s opinions and feedback from the community for free that they can use to improve. If topics were only "it`s fine.. it`s awesome", today this sim would be like 30% from what it is right now.
davehenrie
Registered
The lack of inertia translates into lack of grunt.(torque) Our engines used to have a progressive rise and fall. Now it's almost electric, Zoom to max rpms(when in neutral) and falling back almost as fast. Being able to smoke the tires is a symptom, not the problem itself. When the GTE pack was released, the cars included in the pack behaved very similar to all the other cars released by ISI and S397. The cars were several seconds faster than similar GT3 cars, as they should be, and drove like the engine was a fricken' v8, not some 14k revver. The BOP in-equalities we are talking about refer not to the GTE cars vs themselves, but after the change they were barely on par with the GT3 cars. Folks who wanted to run mixed fields suddenly had to watch out for GT3 cars ABSing into a corner when they should have been some distance behind. An engine in the ISI/S397 family produces power to the driveline by overcoming brake torque. The inertia value speeds up or slows down how quickly this happens. A small V8(like a Judd 3.4L db or the Gibson in the Oreca LMP2) should rev faster than but have less brake torque than a Corvette's large clumsy pistons. But neither should reach max rpms without building through the rpm range.
This is not happening with the current iteration of the GTE cars. Similarly, the large big block should aid in slowing down when the driveline forces slow the rpms after the throttle is lifted.
The new engines are so light(not in weight but resistance) that lifting off the gas does not begin a gradual slowing but shuts down to zero rpm almost immediately. Weight transfers much faster than expected and experienced sim drivers begin complaining almost the instant the BOP was released that the handling had been nerfed.
Gas/Petrol engines, especially non-turbo engines are not electric. But that is the effect now with the changes to the GTE & LMP2 cars.
So here is the root of the matter. Racers who only race online vs similar cars will see little issue, those who prefer mixed fields, especially offline, will be confused why everyone isn't seeing the problem.
This is not happening with the current iteration of the GTE cars. Similarly, the large big block should aid in slowing down when the driveline forces slow the rpms after the throttle is lifted.
The new engines are so light(not in weight but resistance) that lifting off the gas does not begin a gradual slowing but shuts down to zero rpm almost immediately. Weight transfers much faster than expected and experienced sim drivers begin complaining almost the instant the BOP was released that the handling had been nerfed.
Gas/Petrol engines, especially non-turbo engines are not electric. But that is the effect now with the changes to the GTE & LMP2 cars.
So here is the root of the matter. Racers who only race online vs similar cars will see little issue, those who prefer mixed fields, especially offline, will be confused why everyone isn't seeing the problem.
You mean update caused outrage after the big LeMans event (with Max Verstappen etc.)? I don't know the right word, but I think they might "over corrected" the handling after that. I understand they in deed should adjust the Oreca's downforce, to make it slower.
BTW: It's been reported shortly after release that the Oreca 07 has probably wrong lift/drag ratio (there is thread about it in this forum). It was slightly adjusted, but not entirely as Marek Lesniak (S397 physics guy) said it's based on data they got. Still my impression/feeling was that it had too much grip, rarely slid etc., even for a high downforce car.
Anyway, the reason why I think the adjustments (that made the cars more difficult so they are slower) were too substantial is that in the sim aliens' laptimes are lower then in reality. Not only they have no fear of cashing but often find exploits that make them faster. I think on LeMans it can add up to few seconds faster.
dylbie
Registered
Actually @Boldaussie is right.
Low engine inertia would actually allow you to wheelspin easier from a standing start, the engine doesn't have to use as much power/torque getting itself spinning. So with a low inertia engine, you should have no problem lighting up the rear tyres.
Low engine inertia would also create a small issue when letting off the throttle, but not as big as is being made out here. It just means there would be little-to-no engine braking as there is no inertia/resistance from the engine slowing down. I'm also pretty sure the momentum force of the whole car would easily overcome the resistance of engine braking if the inertia is too low.
Modern race engines do have a low inertia anyway. Lightweight internal engine components - lightweight pistons, con rods, cranks, and flywheels for example - all make them rev ridiculously fast, and drop off ridiculously fast.
I think the problem here is far more than a simple Engine Inertia issue. And probably why they have taken so long to fix it. If it was the case, they could have changed the value and pushed out an update within 10 minutes. So there's obviously something else wrong.
Low engine inertia would actually allow you to wheelspin easier from a standing start, the engine doesn't have to use as much power/torque getting itself spinning. So with a low inertia engine, you should have no problem lighting up the rear tyres.
Low engine inertia would also create a small issue when letting off the throttle, but not as big as is being made out here. It just means there would be little-to-no engine braking as there is no inertia/resistance from the engine slowing down. I'm also pretty sure the momentum force of the whole car would easily overcome the resistance of engine braking if the inertia is too low.
Modern race engines do have a low inertia anyway. Lightweight internal engine components - lightweight pistons, con rods, cranks, and flywheels for example - all make them rev ridiculously fast, and drop off ridiculously fast.
I think the problem here is far more than a simple Engine Inertia issue. And probably why they have taken so long to fix it. If it was the case, they could have changed the value and pushed out an update within 10 minutes. So there's obviously something else wrong.
stonec
Registered
If this was true, then F1 engines would have a lack of grunt since they have very low engine inertia compared to some other types of engines. This makes no sense to me. The only situation in which I can see engine inertia could have an effect would be if you modulate the throttle quickly, then the engine response will of course be a bit slower with more inertia. But if you keep the throttle floored during the start, you are already delivering max torque, doesn't matter what the inertia from the engine itself is, that inertia is actually a hindrance.
davehenrie
Registered
You'all are thinking real world. Sims try to simulate but often have to use software gimmicks to get the feel. There is no inertia setting in an iron block lump. It is the result of lots of parts from engine components to driveline hindrances. But the software method of producing power is building two curves of power and resistance. Without some sort of governor, the rpm curve becomes a rocket launch. Engine inertia in rF2 may or may not be the problem, but it does explain the results we have seen.
The engine revs too easily, too quickly. Which suggests/feels like a lack of torque. An engine that has to work to over-come the brake torque is a slower engine but produces the curve we have all come to understand or feel when we press down on the throttle. Thus from a standing start, the engine, with low inertia values, wants to rev to the limit, but the drag of tires and driveline can easily swamp that rpm climb because it has no low end strength. Once moving, this instant rev can be a bonus, the engine spends little time muscling through the lower rpm range and zooming to max rpm. At a track like Le Mans, this would be a huge benefit. But add some hills, and you loose that benefit.
Go back to the pre LM24hr bop. Handling complaints arose quickly, the Oreca was the first to report difficulties in leaving the garage. The BMW M8 suddenly had standing start issues where the car would bog down and get swamped by others.(most noticeable when driving vs AI) These are three issues that I remember reading about. There may have been others, like GT3 cars suddenly showing very little difference in pace compared to GTE vehicles.
Finally for Stonec. I remember about 20 years ago when Honda powered Keke Rosberg in (I think) a yellow Williams showed what POWER really was. During a practice session at Sao Paulo, the TV announcer stood near the bottom of the first short climb after the left hander(just after the 1st DRS zone these days from turn 5 to 6 I think.) With much wider rear tires, the Honda Turbo laid rubber from the exit of the turn all the way up the hill to the braking zone. Show me one modern F1 engine that could do the same at SPEED. I'm not saying it was the fastest way to reach the top, but he was not scrubbing off speed as if he were drifting or spinning donuts. That was power, assisted by the turbo generated by torque, not rpm. Yes, the inertia is a hindrance, because there are forces that drag on an engine from the flywheel through to the tires so a sim should simulate that hindrance. All we are saying, is the hindrance is too little. The GT3's suddenly matching the GTE pace may be more due to drag change than this inertia discussion, but the two symptoms are describing a problem(s) that didn't exist til after the LM24hr BOP.
The engine revs too easily, too quickly. Which suggests/feels like a lack of torque. An engine that has to work to over-come the brake torque is a slower engine but produces the curve we have all come to understand or feel when we press down on the throttle. Thus from a standing start, the engine, with low inertia values, wants to rev to the limit, but the drag of tires and driveline can easily swamp that rpm climb because it has no low end strength. Once moving, this instant rev can be a bonus, the engine spends little time muscling through the lower rpm range and zooming to max rpm. At a track like Le Mans, this would be a huge benefit. But add some hills, and you loose that benefit.
Go back to the pre LM24hr bop. Handling complaints arose quickly, the Oreca was the first to report difficulties in leaving the garage. The BMW M8 suddenly had standing start issues where the car would bog down and get swamped by others.(most noticeable when driving vs AI) These are three issues that I remember reading about. There may have been others, like GT3 cars suddenly showing very little difference in pace compared to GTE vehicles.
Finally for Stonec. I remember about 20 years ago when Honda powered Keke Rosberg in (I think) a yellow Williams showed what POWER really was. During a practice session at Sao Paulo, the TV announcer stood near the bottom of the first short climb after the left hander(just after the 1st DRS zone these days from turn 5 to 6 I think.) With much wider rear tires, the Honda Turbo laid rubber from the exit of the turn all the way up the hill to the braking zone. Show me one modern F1 engine that could do the same at SPEED. I'm not saying it was the fastest way to reach the top, but he was not scrubbing off speed as if he were drifting or spinning donuts. That was power, assisted by the turbo generated by torque, not rpm. Yes, the inertia is a hindrance, because there are forces that drag on an engine from the flywheel through to the tires so a sim should simulate that hindrance. All we are saying, is the hindrance is too little. The GT3's suddenly matching the GTE pace may be more due to drag change than this inertia discussion, but the two symptoms are describing a problem(s) that didn't exist til after the LM24hr BOP.
Made a quick test, driving a BMW M8 GTE with full tank, medium tires, standard aero package, no traction control, fuel mix 3.
G27 wheel and pedals, manual clutch.
I raced against AI GT3, starting fourth, the three top spots being Mc Laren 650, at Montmelo on a dry rubbered track.
Standing start, never got bogged down, first try arrived third at the braking point, on the second try, I arrived first at the braking point having out accelerated the three Mc Laren GT3.
So your mileage may vary.
Cheers.
Last edited:
davehenrie
Registered
You chose the wrong cars to test against. You need to repeat the same test with the GTE BMW vs other GTE cars. The GT3 pace isn't instant, if you let a full field of GTE & GT3 cars controlled by the AI, you will see a lot of mixture between the two classes after a full session of practice or qualifying. Real world GTE cars at certain tracks are about 2 to 5 seconds faster per lap. (Even the slowest GTE) So the BOP has allowed the the two groups to intermingle when they should have a clear separation. One would have thought. the same changes made to GTE would have also been transferred to the GT3 field so that the gap in time was clear and demonstrative. But that change to the GTE cars was made???? April, June? I forget exactly when the first attempt of the LM 24hr was made. Plenty of time since then to re balance the two groups.
And granted, a little practice can overcome much of this, but right before the race, S397 introduced significant changes that threw the very experienced competitors for a loop. And again from a previous post, The cars did not exhibit this behavior when originally released. The cars originally drove and felt like previous cars. Since the GTE BOP, there is a small, but noticeable difference.
And granted, a little practice can overcome much of this, but right before the race, S397 introduced significant changes that threw the very experienced competitors for a loop. And again from a previous post, The cars did not exhibit this behavior when originally released. The cars originally drove and felt like previous cars. Since the GTE BOP, there is a small, but noticeable difference.
Our concern with the BoP for the GTEs isnt just about them being slower, there are a variety of issues with these cars since that update. The issues have been acknowledged by S397, now we all just need to patiently (lol) wait for an update.
Tested as you suggested against GTE cars, AI 100%.
Started fourth arrived second by a bumper length at first braking point at the first try (a tad too much wheel slip at the standing start).
TC off in game and in the setup.
Cheers.
mantasisg
Registered
I think the same way. Fundamentally inertia means that bodies like to stay at what they are already.
I think differently about that. I also had disucssion about these things a month or so ago with one guy who experienced these things IRL, just with bikes. He told me that smaller engines engine brake harder. At first I wouldn't agree, but I think thats true. My original idea was that if there are more cylinders and more displacement, then there would be more vacuum, so more engine braking. Vacuum is the main source of engine braking. Though this is also not absolute, as there would be little hole left to reduce it, or throttle wouldn't ever close 100%. But generally there would be more or less vacuum. I think for race cars thats good, but for street cars it would hurt economy I suppose as it is good to roll in gear, at least if there is electronic injection. Ok, back to inertia of engine components. Idea that I was told was that heavier, bigger components would simply reduce effect of engine braking because larger inertia of those, it means that they resist to slowing down more. So lighter components should mean more engine braking.
It is surely interesting topic, that is not talked a lot, though it is very important for vehicle handling dynamics. I also don't think that momentum of whole car has much to do with engine braking effect, but just stopping in general. Thats because engine braking works at wheels, so no matter how much momentum there is in the car, it could lock the wheels just the same. Speaking of wheels, inertia of wheels + brake discs also must have to do quite a lot with these effects, as it would be easier to make smaller and lighter wheel roll and then stop, than heavier and bigger wheel.