So....who has PCars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
msportdan said:
I do, and im quite impressed its the most complete race sim out there, and yes it is a sim. How is anyone finding the tyre model compared to rf2? I think its quite good i do need more time with it, but with that and its ffb it really feels like your on rubber tyres. Im impressed, as much as RF2 is good and all.... pcars tyre model is almost just as good imo. It certainly looks like it flex's more authentically, personally think RF2 visuals of tyre flex is too overdone and makes the tyre seem under inflated, Pcars seem to have this right.

Anyway yes it hasnt RR or the same great AI but for a game developed like this, i think RF2 or AC has something to worry about.

Just because i like this doesnt mean im not a true sim fan or any crap that someone will surely say. Its quite fine to like another sim and think its as good as rf2.
Click to expand...

I have pCARS and it is quite fun! Fantastic selection of cars and tracks along with good visuals. If they can work the AI and the FFB then I will probably play it more often.
 
F2Chump said:
You may have noticed that many here{including me} rate Stock Car Extreme as one of the best sims ever made, so it's not like none of us can rate and like other sims, it's moreso that pcars is without question a simcade driving model, and to me, I just can't get past the notion that the physics and ffb define a games sim status.

For example, I know for a fact that GTR EVO has an aero model, however, I don't know whether it's the most realistic or where it stands in relation to any other sim, but it has been included.....but does pcars have an aero model?....how on earth do they consider it plausible to drive an F1 without tyres?
Click to expand...
Go ahead try it yourself, knock the wheels off and let us know how far you get.

FYI, I'm playing more rF2 than pCARS right now.
 
Tim W., if I may respond to something said about me earlier...

Spinelli said:
We had a PM conversation on the RD forums. [...]Chronus pretty-much just totally dismissed everything I said just because I couldn't provide "hard numbers" (as if I'm some physicist or engineer or something).

In summary, Chronus pretty-much said what you said (RF1 engine, best ever, etc.).
Click to expand...

There's something outright yellow and shameful when one discloses PM's in public as you are doing here. EVEN worse when you lie about it.

First off: you made a statement (at Racedepartment's GSC forum) about an "old pre-rF1" engine being used by SIMBIN's GTR2 and GTL. David I. and David Wright tried to set the info right, which, as is your usual attitude, you ignored.

I PM'd to help you correct the info (by pointing you to ISI's own site, with the historic background of ISIMotor2 and the redevelopment by other dev. companies).

You went off on a tangent about a "pre-rF2" engine.

And you continued to ignored what was said by me and others. I did, however, suggest to you to collect telemetry data instead of just "posting an opinion" and passing it as FACT. I also advised you to avoid placing the blame on ISIMotor2.5 "core engine" if you did not recalculate the tires. In your POV, though, technical details are not needed, which is odd considering your strong criticism of rF2 (the 5 points or so you made in the "RFactor 2: Best overall physics in simracing... FR3.5: " thread right here).

In regards to rF1, all I said was:
- "After all these years, I haven't met a single driver/engineer/analyst who is not impressed with ""RF1" vehicle dynamics"
- "For them, as for me, rFactor1/Race07/GSC are accurate and very effective for driver training and assessment"

Where did I say it was the "RF1 engine, best ever, etc"?

You hinted at someone (David Wright?) being "ignorant" in this thread, and yet it's you who consistently show full ignorance and a complete lack of respect towards others.

I believe I have never addressed you before that PM...you've been on my IL for several days now at RD, and rightly so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chronus, the discussion changed later to physics. This has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic of how Simbin, Rieza, etc. have different rights to mod or not mod the engine. And please stop posting complete B.S. and picking and choose what to quote. I just tried to tell you some extremely obvious vehicle behavior issues that can be seen within 2 minutes of watching real-life racing. What kind of telemetry am I supposed to present you about complex things like slips angles, momentum, moment of inertia, and all this other fancy stuff? I'm not physicist or engineer. And please stop changing things around on here about our convo. You completed disregarded and ended the PM because you don't even want to think about the things I said.
 
I love GTL GTR PnG and am blessed for what DW and Crono do for us.


So why in heck don't they get a single car in rF2 to go with the Cobra.

Just a single car to start , a trial, demo whatever and Ui

I just don't understand it, how they could even consider AC for PnG over rF2.

Sure it would look "nice" in AC , I have no doubts there......

But it just don' have the Historic "shake, rattle, roll" to make rF2's little toe.


I getting a little tired of chasing Cobras at Longford in 2014 Cop Car. :) ( like taking candy from a baby p )

No one expects the entire PnG just a few 60's models would do me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OT? Is the centering torque /spring-like force in pcars natural? I just find it different from other sims I've tried (AC, rF2, SCE) & isn't like the dampening. I believe its the Mz parameter, so is it best to lower this (contrary to their recommendations)?

-via Tapatalk (S4)
 
MarcG said:
yes DD that's fine, but you misquoted Spins post to make it like he said something he didn't! he said one line about physics nothing about the tire models that was all Spinelli :)
Click to expand...

I was backing up Spin is all.

David never gives rF2 any credit and has no comments or thoughts on rF2 physics I seen.

Last thing I saw he complained about the first demo with the GT2 Vette at Lime Rock.

Why don't he take Build 946 and a Howston or Cobra for a Lap around Longford and get back. ;)


Hard for me to understand how anyone into Muscle can't drive the Cobra and be blown away by rF2
 
Wow, looks like you can't use figures of speech anymore. I'll bow out now. Looks like F2 chump got everybody riled up pretty good. Nobody noticed his posting history and how he doesn't post in this forum other than a pCars thread. Axe to grind maybe? Anyway, carry on fellas, I'm no match for these sim racing egos. I'm glad this isn't nogrip as I"m sure I would have been banned for offending one of the big wigs.
 
On a lighter note, I got banned from nogrip years ago because I made a mistake regarding how many pictures you're allowed to post in a single post. Or I think it was the size of the pics or something that was off from "regulation size". Lol!!
 
Minibull said:
Mmm, coz how much of this would be opinion and speculation on our part? I use a G25 wheel, what level of forces can I feel? Piss all.

And as much as you are looking for a definitive and scientific answer, all that is being put up is opinion. All that would be countered with is opinion.

Not to mention it seems like you are in the middle of another swing of what's "real" to you. Drive whatever gives you a feeling of "reality". Who cares about trying to prove yours is right. Page after page of endless "debate"...
Click to expand...


MB, i think i agree with you here. I think it is me looking for realism over and over again, which not to mention is frustrating to me is also to you guys. Maybe the way i am, im just looking for certain justification. I think because the cars in RF2 are clearly more advanced in some and not the others, i just find GSC better to jump from car to car,.

Ive installed only the CPM cars, and now when i boot up rf2 im like "wow choice ive given myself, but i want utter realism" "car choice and tracks are better in GSC", then boot up gsc and have just as much fun. I also think steering weight is more realistic in gsc, ive upped mine in rf2 to feel better. Even to sacrfice higher forces. I wont lie in the dallara i clip for a few seconds around those 200mph bends on mountain oval. and tbh i dont care because the lower forces are more realistic. Im sure the clipping doesnt happen at any other corner in rf2.

I admit im in a never ending vicious circle, which affecst my actual sim playing time as i wonder more about realistic handling than just enjoying the sims for what they are.
 
Spinelli said:
On a lighter note, I got banned from nogrip years ago because I made a mistake regarding how many pictures you're allowed to post in a single post. Or I think it was the size of the pics or something that was off from "regulation size". Lol!!
Click to expand...

lool

;)


ISI make a new sim for Steam, DX1x and heaven forbid consoles.

I think we can all agree on one thing Spin........

WE WOULD ALL BE PRAYING IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE PHYSICS !@! :eek:

cat-car.jpg

" Terrified Pussy "

lool
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about taking the Historic tracks out, talk about a sucker punch. hehehe


P.S.

I did a Watkins 3 Hour LMP/GT today ( well 53 laps of it, retired leading LMP2 )
was okay fun, must have been to do 53 laps ........lool .

View attachment 16935

Been in Longford rF2 for a hour now practicing pitbull technique on the Ai. p
Who can't enjoy Cobras and Vettes at Longford. p

Any longer waiting I be back to pCars. lol :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think chronus point is that if we have data and professionals who understand having to adapt to the digital world of sim racing, then we should be capable of building a very convincing simulation, "and" that it's possible some of our misgivings might be correct, but could also be assumptions on our part.

Also, the ISI engine is powerful and IF any developer wants to make the effort, next gen physics can be created on it.
 
if i was the above mate...

a) i wouldnt play RF2 at all

b) wouldnt be on this forum

c) would be constantly moaning about rf2 visuals , which i never have.

pcars may not be as detailed in depth as rf2, but as a whole package it simulates motorsport quite well. just needs fixing in a few places. That doesnt stop it being a joy to experience. I care about physics, but i also like a sim to simulate motorsport as a whole. That includes dynamic weather realistic visuals, and real tracks a great cars.

i will take no shame in being a fan of motorsport as a whole, which includes the above, rather than mathematics/science in physics. Because even with all the real data inputted into these sims, and no matter how much is calculated, a sim CANNOT produce the feel of racing a track car.

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top