Pace of sim car development & simulation quality

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by traind, Aug 1, 2017.

  1. traind

    traind Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    25
    What are the driving factors that differentiate sim car development between sims?

    I am asking this after reflecting on the great difference in the pace of developing Sim cars between different titles. Rfactor 2 and iRacing seem to take a long time to develop new cars whereas most of the other titles create large volumes of car content relatively rapidly. Proponents of RF2 and iRacing would likely argue that the detail in their development process requires more time but also leads to a more accurate handling vehicle. Proponents of the other Sims might argue that other developers are more effective with the use of their resources, more aggressive with their business model and still produce very accurate looking and handling vehicles.

    The truth is probably somewhere in the middle but I am interested to hear data and perspective from knowledgeable people about this.
     
  2. Lazza

    Lazza Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,607
    Likes Received:
    4,621
    Why are you asking here? :D
     
    TJones, CamiloNino and SPASKIS like this.
  3. traind

    traind Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    25
    Actually, I should probably go straight to Niels as he is pretty responsive and obviously has an informed point of view.

    I was thinking about it yesterday, came here to look for news on the Mclaren release, and ended up posting it a bit randomly.
     
  4. T1specialist

    T1specialist Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    163
    It depends what level are you starting from. If you are an absolute beginner assetto corsa is the easier way because it is well documented and requires less fiddling. Even if you have never opened 3d editing software and have basic skin creation experience and have some engineering ability (you understand geometry and basic physics concepts) then you can create a car for ac. In rf2 that will never work out. Ac also exposes its physics values in clear language and 95% of the stuff you find in physics files is self explanatory. Of course not all of it is but you can still find what those values mean.

    Rf2 is the total opposite. Even if you are engineer none of the values make any sense unless you happen to find documentation that explains what exactly those values do. The physics is not the difficulty but the unknown equations rf2 uses to describe those physics. Ac is little simpler in terms of physics quality (much worse in some edge cases) but also million times faster to learn. In ac development a lot of the variables inside the 3d program can be left totally untouched whereas in rf2 all those settings need to be set in very explicit way or stuff doesn't just work. This does not mean ac is simpler graphically. Ac just works smarter. Instead of creating complex combination of different uvmaps for rf2 in ac you just use an uv multiplier number for example and get the same effect.

    Rf2 is a lot lot more difficult simply because the documentation is really poor and majority of the basic stuff you need to figure out yourself. There are also lots of values and variables that you can not find any information at all anywhere. In ac the well documented nature of the sim allows everyone to push their content to the highest quality because the game offers documentation which also translates well into a do-list or minimum requirement list. Whereas in rf2 the lack of documentation makes it almost impossible to even add all the supported features into the car because you don't even know what is supported. Rf2 is also full of exceptions and exceptions to exceptions (just look at gen and upgrades files) all which you need to find, learn and memorize. Overall rf2 takes about 10x as much time as ac to do something for a beginner. A professional modeller who is familiar with all of rf2 can reduce that gap but not remove it..

    I think the answer is clear as day. Ac is a lot faster. If development speed is your main criteria than ac is obvious choice. Only reason to make content for rf2 is that you want to make content for rf2. Which is a valid reason.

    I don't think anybody can give you any details about iracing processes. Maybe some ex-developer is out there willing to spill the beans lol but I doubt it.
     
    Guimengo and traind like this.
  5. patchedupdemon

    patchedupdemon Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    I guess the amount of devs working on content plays a huge role too,iracing cars are very well modelled but the physics etc feels like copy and paste jobs to me,where rf2 each car feels a lot different
     
    muz_j and stonec like this.
  6. traind

    traind Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    25
    Nice post T1Specialist! So that covers the creation side from a modding perspective and shows that some tools are much more streamlined and easier to use thus increasing speed of development.

    What about cars from developers themselves? I am curious to hear some data about whether ISI/Studio 397/iRacing have higher standards for acquiring data then some other sim makers and that need for extra data slows the development process? I have read that iRacing are always with the car in person taking measurements etc when they create a car. Is that the same for all sim makers? (Surely modders can't always do that).
     
  7. Emery

    Emery Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Depends on whether the car is a "generic" or DLC. A generic will have plausible values, but unlikely to be an exact copy of an actual car. These days DLC is usually made from the manufacturer's CAD data rather than literally taking a tape measure to the parts. Historic content is going to get the tape measure treatment if possible otherwise it has to come from old engineering drawings, calibrated photos, or scanning.

    The most difficult measurements to obtain and implement are aerodynamics. Best case scenario for data comes from on-track sessions followed by wind tunnel followed by CFD. If none of that is available, then one has to look at similar cars for which data is available and judiciously compare to the car being modeled.

    Experience counts for a lot in filling in data blanks that couldn't be measured.

    Modders can be very resourceful in finding data and measurements. Or they can be uninformed or lazy. Opening up the model and examining it will give you an indication of which might be the truth.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2017
    patchedupdemon likes this.
  8. Will Mazeo

    Will Mazeo Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,227
    Likes Received:
    1,584
    I guess it depends on the engine, if you have the data does not take too long to make a car in isimotor. From a dev side I would guess the time it takes is all related to when they get the data as the 3d model is usually bought from someone that already made it. I think the 650S for example is the same used in AC, made by URD. You see the Nissan GT500 was licensed ages ago and they never got the data from the teams, once the car was not used anymore it probably became a lot easier to put their hands on it. Customer cars like GT3 is probably easier.
    iRacing code comes from NR2003, no idea how easy it is to develop a car on it or how much they changed that engine. But data also counts there, see the HSV010 was announced but never released as (people say) they never managed to get the data
     

Share This Page