To be sure: cars like F1 and Indy won't see much of an improvement for the time being. Is that correct?
i wonder also, I'm totally confused now what cars are running the impoved model. i suppose the gt and the fe dlc?
In addition to your cars listed, The non GT3 Radical, and the Honda Civic, as well, I would assume. Since both were mentioned either in the blog or the roadmap. Oh, and the Nissan GT500. Much different feel from it's original release.
I wonder what calculation of centrifugal forces in a quasistatic model meant. Centrifugal forces are related to a mass describing a nonlinear path and depend on the square of the speed and on the curvature of the described path. Quasistatic approach is used to determine the reaction of the tire under deformation. When doing the force and momentum balance equations for sure you need to account for centrifugal forces (when using local reference system) but those should be independent from the quasistatic approach itself. They just need to be added accordingly to their real path. For the nodes in the contact patch itself this centrifugal forces are actually zero since the trajectory they describe is not circular but linear with respect to the local coordinate system.
I would say that your assumption is uncorrect, when a point hit the road surface, there is a sum of forces, and not a subtraction.
I think it's as simple as described - the data they had for tyre behaviour suggested what they were doing was close enough to be within margin of error, so no need to change it. The comparison shot indicated the old model would keep forces relatively high in the middle of the contact patch when the tyre was overloaded, so some sort of leftover of the centrifugal force was used through the contact patch and was enough to keep better (heavier) contact. Subsequent data showed this wasn't correct, so now the middle of the contact patch has less force, the contact patch elongates with more deflection. Or something. What I find more interesting is the whole catalyst for this - previous data (provided to ISI) was extrapolated and simplified, and that meant the model appeared to be good enough. One question often posed (ok, maybe not THAT often, but sometimes...) is why go to this tyre model that needs you to define the shape of the tyre and do all the lookup table calculations etc, when rF1 and derivatives use slip table data to determine behaviour - and often that data is easier to obtain in the first place, so it's easier to match. Input = output. Well here's an answer - even years of tyre data can be wrong. If your model gets very close to correct behaviour, and you get the construction close, the behaviour will be close. Using slip tables will only ever get as close as your data is, and can be tricked by erroneous data.
Besides that, slip tables might be good enough for non powered tires under acceleration. With only two significant force components (normal and lateral) lookup tables are assumable but when you introduce the third component (longitudinal) it comes quite tricky since the number of combinations increase a lot. Significant longitudinal forces appear in all tires under braking and in powered tires under acceleration.
Proper tire flex animation requires using the more complicated model. The simple model has no animation other than rotation or a fake animation.
I don't think animation is a big factor here. If you're willing to keep going with a slip table system you can get it close enough with fake animation as you say. Certainly I don't think anyone will notice the difference by looking at it.
would people agree to these cars being the only ones updated. Be nice if a dev could confirm what models have the brand new tyre model? @Marcel Offermans
just seen this comment on steam Michael Borda 18 hours ago @opteron apologies for that. Bit of a mix up, we have this done internally, we just need to get this properly tested and released publicly. So far then, it would just appear to the the Formula E, GT3 pack (McLaren, Callaway, Radical RXC, Mercedes-AMG, Bentley) and Honda Civic BTCC.