Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Nieubermesch, Jan 23, 2021.
Those are for TBC tires that player physics doesn't use, basically tires from rF1, AI use them.
I don't think so, it's someone on the forum who maintains this site.
There is a TGM page as well.
Wasn't aware AI was using TBC...explains a lot of things
yeah, i don't think this needs to be discussed any further than this.
it's pretty clear that this is way worse even than iracing's old tire model days.
this makes rfactor 2 look really lame and should be addressed next patch!
This is clearly beyond exaggeration...
I think it's pretty clear there are opninions based on the persons assumptions and expectations, with very little hard evidence to back it up. That's why the discussion is going around in circles with assertions of what's realistic and what's not.
[EDIT] As a reference, here is a video from Aristotelis Vasilakos, Lead Dev at Kunos for Physics, since he worked for years with all GT3 teams and Pirelli so he is surely someone to listen. In this video he is showing the real tire slip angle curve shape (not very precise but the shape and ideal slip angles are correct) and also explains why you feel a bit less torque in your wheel despite you still have grip. Very interesting :
Well...there are evidences, for example look at this :
It is the Corvette CR8 on a very short oval track, abusing steering wheel rotation...Since it is a left turning graph, I only show the Front Right tire data.
As you can see, even with extremely high slip angle and clear understeer (the more it is blue, the more it understeers) you still manage to handle high lateral G.
Same graph but now dot color is for temperature :
Isn't it obvious that not the temperature, not the slip angle and not the understeering are cancelling lateral G ?
Theses graphs are for the global lateral G, the whole car...so maybe it is just wrong and we should use per wheel graphs ?
So I did the same test (with the Porsche this time, so we can compare 2 GTE meanwhile) but with Lateral Force directly on the wheel itself (the shape should be the same at the same slip angle, Y axis is a factor scale between G and N so should have the same shape). This one is by not trying to oversteer :
Now with temperature as color :
Now the same car on the same track with exact same setup but with induced understeer :
With temperature highlighted :
Lap times were :
Corvette w/ understeer : 18 sec 419
Corvette w/o understeer : 18 sec 385
Porsche w/ understeer : 18 sec 317
Porsche w/o understeer : 18 sec 254
Track is Martinsville, both cars are default setup since my aim wasn't to get the best possible lap.
Lap Times were very consistent.
Bottom line is, during this test, understeering was a bit slower but much easier to drive, especially with low FFB...and wasn't punishing enough since tire wear was colossal but the car still managed to get pretty much the same lap time for the whole stint.
It appears clear that tire degradation or overstressing is not only possible but efficient and not punishing enough. I'm not sure how punishing it should be (hard to tell) but it was clearly easier to drive like this than to try to hold the best possible line and wheel rotation, lap times were consistent in both cases but clearly harder to do when trying to "respect" the car.
PS : Tire wear graph from Corvette understeering technique :
this is like politics and religion.
you can shove people's as*es with videos that make their claims look ridiculous, but they will refuse to agree with you.
moving on with life, as this is going absolutely nowhere unless we get a post from studio 397.
see you on the other side.
Could you do the same with AC? To compare the tire behavior?
I just had a very rewarding conversation with someone who participated in the beta and who notably helped create the cars we're talking about (GT3, GTE or others) and who had identified all the problems we're talking about and documented them.
He tried for literally years to explain the problems and flaws of gambling nowadays but nothing has changed, S397 turns a deaf ear and completely ignores these extremely advanced studies (what I just posted is just a detail, they went much further).
So I see no objective reason to continue to search and prove anything since it is as useful to piss in a violin...
I confess that I don't understand Marcel's position on this subject, but it becomes obvious that with the introduction of the competition system it is necessary to avoid that this kind of reproach can be made to rF2 but no, obviously it is better to remain obtuse than to admit to having been wrong. So I prefer to let it go, I have already unfairly and indirectly accused a legitimate driver of cheating (which was absolutely not my intention), I'm not going to spend weeks or even months to prove something if at the finish even with blatant evidence nothing changes.
To answer the question : yes one could (Assetto Corsa, not Competizione, not the good channels of telemetry) but finally, with what use?
I took a bit of time to follow the advise received in this thread and followed a video on Risto Kappet preparing a car for Zandvoort, at first I was unable to see or undestand what I was seeing, but then I've begin to understand the thought process and the method, and with this the driving. for starter I have to say that I've read somewhere that modern racecar (F1 especially) are designed to be inherently understeering, and watching that video I understood how and why this is proficient.
The first thing I've noticed is that (in that video) he does not trail brake absolutely. All the braking is done in a straight line, with straight wheel. As soon as brake input is ZERO, wheel is turned, being understeery this mean you can turn quite rapidly the wheel, with little risk to unbalance the car, with little risk to oversteer, the scrubbing of the tires is a matter of fraction of second, you don't start the turn 10 Km/h or more than what is needed to make it, on the contrary, I've seen what "slow in, fast out" actually mean. The scrubbing of the tire (if needed, make you bleed that bit of speed you didn't lose with braking phase, instead of carrying the braking in the turn (risking oversteer, and delaying acceleration in any case). Once the car is at the right speed, the front tires point in the right direction and the car start turning. At this point you can apply the required throttle to get out of the turn, but the important thing is that all this happen at turn in, not at turn apex, this mean you have the whole turn to go.. and you do it all under throttle. Now.. I already knew this driving technique, but never seen it in the making. I've obviously started experimenting, and the obvious struck me: standard base pedal set can't cut it so easily, but anyway the improvement is there at reach distance.
Oh just out of curiosity or general education. Nothing that really would benefit the hole topic as it is known for 10 years now.... so, I understand your point.
Nice, but as we can tell it is hard to tell without reference. And I bet that it would be very hard to get reference of RL telemetry with same driving, as no one really drives like that. Instead IRL "respecting the car" technique seems rather popular.
Difinitely politics and religion comes close. Basically anything that requires believing, using evidence and logic while choosing which of few different views are more true. Simulation surely comes in similar way.
I'd say that RL videos should actually count as "hard evidence", but we can see that people indeed refuse or are incapable to observe very simple things. Because of this we are stuck at the very first step of progress, which is acknowledgement. We aren't even in stable position to start discussions about the reasons, what makes things do what they do.
TL;DR - just telling things straight, people needs to be submissive to value challenges, unless they have strong will because of extreme interest and enthusiasm.
To be honest I'll tell it straight. Don't ever expect anything to get more realistic, it probably will only get worse. The physics are mostly driven by demand of people, which turns into income as they buy stuff. Getting more "car respectful" handling physics will inevitably cause a lot more people to find out how much they actually suck at driving competitively fast consistently. Increasing apparent skill gaps, as laptimes gaps would increase, as well as just simply ability to control the car at the limit. In other words more realism would show how much unequally skilled simracers are. iRacing seems to get away by supposedly making cars even more difficult, I think thats because people pay for the time they use it, and it makes them spend more time on mastering the cars, and fulfilling their potential. In other words because they pay to play, they are a lot more submissive to the challenges. Sims like ACC and rF2 unfortunately seems to have people who simply quits if they don't perform as good as they think they should...
Thats a very interesting phenomenon, I think it is related to how much inner motivation people has to push themselves. I used to breakdance for quite a long time, I was super motivated and interested. I remember having some opportunities to practice for free, and few times I remember talking with more casual guys who were going to the paid lessons and asking them why they don't come to practice for free. The answer was that they aren't really motivated that much, and having paid lessons motivated them, because they wanted to make use of what they already had paid for. By the way... breakdance is pretty hard thing to do.
So bottom line... people will not care about realism, will not care about pushing themselves unless they are going to be extremely interested, or they are made to submit in some way, such as by getting them to value activity by having them to pay for it.
The sideeffect of using high slip angles may be also the effect that you can stay on higher throttle to overcome drag. Once you release the steering, you have instant acceleration. Kind of gocart technic.
Perhaps it is go kart tehnique I don't know. But I know that it is kind of 1950s and before that... driving technique It was legit 1950s driving technique. And even then, with those tires and aero it was more subtle.
Wouldn't the acceleration be more instant if there would be as less wheels scrubbing with big angles in the first place ?
The thing is different. By overdriving in such way, when physics allows it, you can use this drag caused by understeer as a way to scrub off speed during mid turn. It is basically additional braking, and the fact that cornering force is still efficient while also scrubbing off the speed is the reason why it is "The technique" to drive fast with such physics.
So thats for the understeer thing. But there are also four wheels drifts, and some overteer mechanics going on too. Which aren't truly as it works IRL with modern cars IMO.
That's just sad... Even more reason to leave the competition system.
My 2 cents here. I left competition system in RF2 this weekend, just before @Yzangard finally spotted there is a problem (I did whole GTE competition and started both Alpines). And not because I can't perform good enough. But to perform good enough I have to use this technique which is simply not pleasure for me to drive. I feel like I'm "grinding" the car/wheels. I'm also not very fast in ACC, I can keep my pace but probably in the middle of the pack. But I find pleasure in training and in getting better in ACC (even in AC with SRS). In RF2 I have to kill my tires and handle shaking FFB and do stuff those cars are not doing in reality. In AC/ACC I improve by doing things that make sense.
So maybe your logic is true for some (most?) people but I can assure you that not for everyone
@Havner I could be subjective with ACC, but I am sure that it is in completely same direction. Because Aris is a kool guy, and great expert at cars handling, maybe it stands at a bit better level IDK, still it is in same direction. I have enjoyed the hell out of ACC in its very first EA realease (after hotfix), in my opinion it was nailed, although perhaps a bit in the difficult side. Everyone including me expected more user friendly car handling in next ACC EA build. However, it was a ton more of a shift than I expected, basically they made it to be as similar as AC as they could. The dramatic converstion in the second EA release was absolutely because the learning curve wasn't going up fast enough for most people, and it was too much of a difference to AC fan comparing to AC (and of course simracers compare simulations to simulations, not to reality). If people would have spent some more hours at climbing the learning curve, they would have found that it wasn't as much harder, as it just needed some more concentration and slightly different approach and reading of what the car was doing.
There is nothing fundamentally that much wrong neither with rF2, neither with ACC IMO, both are super flexible with parametrization and are able to get the handling as much realistic as needed. They also must be as much likeable as possible because they need people having fun and having giggles at how good they can drive the car at its extremes. Only iR works better by making people to sweat more than they should and not less lol
ACC probaby does better job at balancing realism and likeability for the market. I think in rF2 it could be done even better. Finally, IMO likeability should not even be a factor at all, everything should be based on realism alone. I think reality is pretty enjoyable and exciting, nailing the cars driving techniques might require a bit more time to learn. But once owning the true to real life techniques and understanding of how cars works would make more sense, would be more predictable and even probably easier. Although probably would require more concentration and focus. It shouldn't feel like a senseless grind, but more like exciting task to perform, it should be a good sport. And competition system of rF2 should serve well as equalizer for differently skilled people without compromising physics. Assuming there would be enough activity. But it ain't happening yet, maybe it will never happen.
@mantasisg Yeah. I know your opinion about ACC, I've seen it before. I don't know what to think about that as I bought ACC when it was in beta, but never played a lot in it. Don't know what physics were there before, but I know that FFB was shit. I had T300 back then and AC vs ACC was day and night. When I came back to ACC it was around 1.3 and I had SC2 and the FFB was on par with AC IMO. I honestly don't know why you think current ACC physics are made to appeal to fans but I learned that you know more about physics than I do. On the other hand, James Baldwin after he already made his rounds in real GT3 said that before the race he launches ACC with VR and wheel/pedals set as in his car and besides G forces it's pretty much the same. About your argument that ACC was made to be similar to AC, tell that to GM ;-) He still complains that ACC's FFB is shit comparing to AC ;-)
Each to his own I presume. Each has different requirements.
And even if you are right (not saying you are not) and ACC has made some sacrifices to be more appealing it's still much more believable and pleasure to drive for me (talking about GT3 of course). I don't know, maybe it's just that this front wheel grinding is so unappealing for me that I cannot race like that in RF2. It was very nice for me to drive before I started doing multi in it (and learned about those damned tires). In ACC I'm in the middle. In RF2 I was last. I started using *this* technique and I was in the middle. Like I said, this technique is just so unpleasant. Firstly because every time I do that I know this is not right. Secondly, because my DD FFB doesn't like that very much (vibrations on worn tires and I don't like weak FFB). My hands also. I don't have to do such illogical things in ACC.
I just couldn't force myself to improve in RF2 using this technique. And even though maybe, just maybe this flaw is only in GT3/GTE/LMP2 and maybe few others knowing what I know I can't force myself to spend lots of time with other cars knowing that something might be off with them. Especially now that we have some suspicions that S397 knows about all of this and ignores that willingly.
@Havner I could always be incorrect about some things, especially for ACC since I don't give it that much time really. But I generally didn't feel the connection and what I expect from car all the last times I have launched ACC. I'd say I feel it pretty real in rF2, although it changes when you learn how you actually need to drive to be fast.
I have never agreed that FFB was bad in ACC initially. I always had an argument that it was mostly due to people being used to AC, and not being able to quickly rewire their perception for the differences. More importantly IMO people did find physics advancement strange, and perceived most of that through FFB, because they didn't know how else to explain it.
James Baldwin is of course very credible, a lot more than GamerMuscle for sure. More than me, although me is me, and I stand by myself It is important to understand what criteria RL drivers use when they judge realism, just as well as anyone. They have advantage of being able to compare to real life experience directly, but it is still unclear what exact criteria do they use. The downside of RL racers criteria is that they will all be asking themselves about what they should be able to do, they will not ask themselves about if they should be having failures, they are simply great and they don't fail
Regarding ACC EA first realease again... it was tested by real drivers before going public, I also remember videos online before it going public of some pro driver practicing in ACC in the paddock just before doing actual race. Later on days after rough EA first relase and FFB s**tstorm ACC flopped in their marketing stunt by getting "team grasser" to drive, only single driver was capable to drive. It did hurt. I think they got these drivers to drive without any practice and getting used nor to sim, nor to the rigs, also I bet they had "game attitude". Never said it shouldn't have been easier than it was then, but it hurt double realising that AC did become benchmark of reality, but not reality itself.
And yes, @Havner S397 doesn't seem to be getting too much involved into these discussions, nor they seemed to respond to Michelin engineers. On one hand, it is great that they won't get invloved with nonsense and they don't waste the time. On the other hand, it is bad that they won't get involved with good stuff as well, of which Michelin engineers I am sure are. There really is nothing to expect at all regarding the physics. I personally use rF2 for modding, and I know cars content which IMO is fairly well done at physics department. I will be happy as long S397 upgrades whatever they can about rF2, get some awesome good quality tracks and just don't shut the whole thing down. Will be happy with that. Without rF2 simracing is dead to me.
That's sad. They changed it in the past, as I've already shown they did and documented in their physics blogs. Let's see if something makes them change their minds. It's really weird they want the coverage of their sim to have people doing this sort of stuff at the high levels... Can't understand how that can be beneficial. They could even have a mor forgiving tire to save slides, but this slip angle should be fixed at least, as it feels wrong just driving and trying to push and not even a forgiving slide is what happens, it's the car being able to go beyond limits it shouldn't before that.
Separate names with a comma.