That's hilarious because Netkar Pro and AC are nothing alike in vehicle dynamics. Netkar Pro is much closer to rFactor 2 in terms of vehicle dynamics/behavior, much closer. Netkar Pro and rF2 and are much more dynamic and much less "video-game" feeling. But if you like AC or any other sim because you "get on good with it" that's good, I know people who "get on good" with Gran Turismo, that doesn't meant it has more thorough and dynamic vehicle behavior. I "get on" just fine with AC in terms of it's handling behavior and FFB as well, I have no problem driving the cars, but one's comfort and naturalism driving the cars is not a measure of how "proper" and realistic the sim is.
This brings me back to a point I made in another thread some days ago, about how many people tend to: A - Only race the sim that makes them feel most like a real race driver (which is often the "easier" sims with more shallow physics) B - Defend that sim to death, saying it's the most realistic (because if it is the most realistic, then they might actually be great drivers). Many, many Gran Turismo fanboys are guilty of this. I'm not saying GT is a sim per say... They say that though. Sad.
and i agree with that. but come the winter lull, do you really not see a high demand for such 'dynamism' being implemented in AC? every other line you use that word to knock AC bc its weather & ToD are nonexistent. i know that isnt just what you meant, and i agree the cobra should NOT be comfortable to drove. but neither should it a be a 150mph coffin to anyone who doesnt engine brake... its a beta mod that has a ways to go, & will probably continually be developed for weeks if not months. turning this into a complete bogus 'casuals' vs 'hardcore' siimracers debate just made you look so tragically silly. especially when the AC forum is rife with mods being worked on. too early for the non-converted tracks, but the cars we're glimpsed so far are excellent. this elitist head in the sand approach could doom rf2 with AC & then pCARS hitting in a few months. i mean, look around. rf2s best modders got bought or are employed for sms. theres not a whole lot going on, i dont see a whole lotta content being teased by rf2 despite every indicaitiono that a ton of its out there waiting to be given the go ahead. bleh.
Look out guys, he's brought out his shield. I guess you can't combine the words casual and AC around here. You can talk about how one guy says "this is the best" but you can't call AC "casual". lol. What's next? Someone in a corvette forum posting that he prefers a C7 over a Mustang? Better go get em and call him an elitist. I do wonder if Kunos has a forum at all sometimes. I know I sure as hell don't use it.
just bc AC makes an intelligent attempt at appealing to the casual market, says NOTHING about the quality of the sim. you have blinders on, which is your loss. rf2 & AC are both great but they are VERY differrent. and no, its not because AC makes me feel like im better than i am. i dont. this is a 'simcade' line & it wont get you very far with anyone. AC is not simcade, its full blown sim in terms of currently released content with aritificial assists off. sorry yr so insecure about your favorite widdle videogame, dude. but i reiterate this nose in the ground 'superiority just cuz' mentality appeals to NO ONE & is not gonna help rf2 in the long run.
a c7?? uhh ok. anyway, im dont have a problem with ppl preferring one or the other. i have a problem with those that have to resort to childish namecalling. makes you look like a total fool with a complex. ac IS killing rf2 and it IS a shame but its not because its 'casual mode'. open your mind & find some constructive solutions or stfu.
I'm not a fanboy and don't have my "blinders" on. When I was leading a real-life F2000 championship and on my way to another series and $25,000 scholarship money for the next season and then I ended up finishing third because I lost the lead of the championship in the last 2 races due to rain and not being experienced in the rain, then I had to turn to sims to replace my real-life "career" due to a lack of funds. And let me tell ya.... No sim is perfect, but AC sure as heck has some inherent overly friendly and simplistic vehicle dynamics built into it's tyre model/physics engine, and while not perfect, Netkar Pro, rFactor 2, Game Stock Car, etc. do not have any of that. While AC car physics have changed since the first release almost a year ago, these issues are still there since day 1 and seem to (unfortunately for purists, or just people who have the senses to notice these fine details) be a fundamental part of the underlining tyre model/physics engine. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, or think I'm being too picky about the amount of "sim-ness" in a games physics, or think I'm crazy, or whatever, then that's fine. I have enough experience, and experience of driving close enough to the theoretical laptime limit of the car, to know all these tiny things that make or break a "true-sim", and I don't care if 20 million ppl own a product, if I can feel that bull-crap stuff in the underlying physics/tyre-engine then it's not worthy to be a serious, real-life-racing-replacement hobby-product for me, but instead just a really cool "realistic" video game.
Thanks. It's nice to hear it from someone who has real experience, even though it looks so obvious to many of us.
Indeed it is. Casual games always do. I'm not even sure you know what you're arguing about anymore. lol. Let's just leave it at that man. Plenty of sim racing sites to argue about "which is best". I personally don't give a crap, was only saying I think a title is in the "casual" genre which I'm more than entitled to do so.
and youre wrong. it simply has found a way to attract a casual audience while maintaining its authenticity. and...thats why isi is in serious trouble. hence my 3rd or 4th post on this thread.
After having worked on AC physics, I can tell you that there isn't anything odd there. It has complex aerodinamics, complete suspension kinematics, and a smart tire model. Everything can be checked in-game with the dev apps, suspension geometries, live cambers, slip angles, slip ratios, slip curves, downforce coefficients, aero balance, etc etc etc, which is very helpful when making a mod, I must say. If their intention was to make a "fun pseudo sim", they wouldnt have added such features, for sure. Another question is if it's as good as rF2, which probably isn't (in the physics complexity, in other areas is miles ahead), but every sim has it's own issues, even rF2 (and AC physics engine/tire model isn't either finished btw).
@spinelli id love for you to point out examples of where GSCEs phsyics engine is more refined than ACs. i find them quite similar in fact. i think youre in a the overwhelming minority & the burnen of proof is on you (if you care enough to give it, & i doubt you do). its a sahme you cant enjoy AC to the level many do but i respect yr opinions. but the elitism needs to stop...really, this is just a depressing thread to read as an rf2 fan. keep on partying like its 2005, guys.
Cool, we disagree, now we can stop with your name calling and your "stfu" comments. Have a good eve bud. Gotta say my ignore list is getting quite large around here.
nah. theres nothing to agree or disagree about, youre simply factually wrong. have a wonderful night 'bud'. lolz
Domi, of course nothing is going to be noticeably wrong in terms of general suspension, aero, weight distribution, etc. That's relatively basic stuff that any engineer can design and program into a physics engine (or tell a software programmer to program for him ). You're taking what I'm saying out of context. As you know, physics engines are super complex. I'm not saying that there, for example, is a big obvious flaw in suspension design and that any modder can see this, that would of course be silly.
But then again you are suggesting that the engine itself is not the problem, but the way they make the cars, maybe. Which is totally different
I doubt it's car to car, as you can notice it in just about everycar. You can't just look at numbers and not see anything wrong and then think the sim is just fine because you don't see any odd values. Many ppl didn't see anything wrong in the rF1 tyre files (I even remember Niels saying that just about anything you need to create a proper tyre is in the rF1 tyre) but no matter the car, no matter the mod, I can, at a certain point, feel certain rF1 things that come through in the physics (almost certainly tyre model) no matter the car or mod or how amazing work has gotten into nodding it. There is an entire physics engine running underneath whatever you have available as a modder. You don't have the "core" physics engine available to you, just the values to edit/mod certain values of it, so most don't truly have access to the deep physics/tyre engine itself, or to go even further - the very programming code itself of that physics engine.
I'm exactly saying the opposite, that maybe the engine is not the problems but the values fitted in. Remember what did you say about the McLaren MP4-12c for example, how is it possible that one car felt sim for you and the rest felt dumbed down if the engine is the same?
You're completely contradicting yourself, sadly... How on earth would Kunos have been able to attract a casual audience if AC actually was an authentic sim? It attracted a casual audience because it is... guess what? Casual. No matter how much is built into that physics engine it just feels casual. It feels shallow in a lot of ways. In some ways it feels good too, no doubt. It shows that the devs obviously meant well. But most of all it feels like a video game. Hence the casual audience. AC is however a very nice racing game, don't get me wrong. I spent a few hours with it today and had fun, loads of fun actually. ISI being in real trouble with rF2... That's just nonsense. What are you talking about..? AC killing rF2..? Apples and oranges, man.
