Thank You 397 but could you fix whats broken first?

[MotherDawg]

Thank You 397 for the coming Screen Space Reflections, the new faster UI and all the new content... but would it be too much to ask you guys to fix whats broken?

"rFactor Pro is used by professional teams" ...I'm sure none of them can use a simulator with broken camber. There is no way any serious driver can use rF2 to further his capabilities.

The second part of my post is way more important than my two cents here but might as well use the tribune... some of the material you guys are working on will surely be fantastic but right now, when racing online (your core), we don't know who's next to us... when are you guys going to fix the Labels? Between graphical candies and knowing who I'm about to pass, I'll chose the information every time.
---
The main part of my post was written by Jon Uyan on the CMSRacing.com Discord Channel to complement a set of setups supplied to the league.

rF2 physics data :

1- Tires: Min pressures provide you the best grip overall regardless of IMO (Inside-Middle-Outside) temperature changes.

2- Camber: is the most 'broken' suspension geometry element in rF2 physics at the moment, since the latest 2017 update. The camber, thermal grip and contact patch values and their relationship is such that setting up proper camber for the car to handle corners does not work the way it should. In other words; if you are trying to set your camber angles so that you have a perfect contact patch on outside (loaded) tires, you're on the wrong path!. Instead camber has a more than usual relationship with global grip amount. The more closer to 0 degrees the more grip you have everywhere, regardless of cornering problems. Basically you can actually go faster at a slow track with a lot of corners with low camber adjustment then high camber adjustment, because it provides that much grip, despite the fact your outside tire shoulders are heating up so much due to wrong camber angles.

However, low camber and this 'extra' grip has an adverse affect on top speed at long straights. To fix that you have to raise the (negative) camber so compromise is balanced. So, on a track like Silverstone you will see I used higher camber to not suffer from this slow-down. Camber adjustments are a compromise like they are, but in rF2 with all the wrong reasons.

3- Springs: It is a known fact that gMoto physics engine 'likes' soft springs as a general rule. I have not lowered springs all the way to softest on these cars but they all are soft enough. The sweet spot for springs though is a wide range and adjustments can vary depending on the track and setup needs.
---

***EDIT***
This clip just came out today... when opinion leaders are jumping ship...
From Ermin Hamidovic channel:

Thanks again and please... have fun.
Gilles Lalonde
I've raced for real in my life...
but now, I'm just an IT tech.

 

[AMillward]

"rFactor Pro is used by professional teams" ...I'm sure none of them can use a simulator with broken camber. There is no way any serious driver can use rF2 to further his capabilities.

rf2 and rfPro aren’t the same software. Far from it.

 

[SunBro]

rf2 and rfPro aren’t the same software. Far from it.

Aren't they extremely modular? I remember so. Pro teams mostly rely on rf pro / ac pro as an exoskeleton and mostly use their own physics code. So yeah just like ac pro, rf pro has nothing to do with the end consumer product that we use.

 

[AMillward]

Plus all that talk in the original post about upgrades to make the thing more realistic, yet also wants a label hovering over other cars telling you the name of the driver.

like, one or the other XD

 

[Bill Worrel]

Plus all that talk in the original post about upgrades to make the thing more realistic, yet also wants a label hovering over other cars telling you the name of the driver.

like, one or the other XD

I thought I was the only one who didn't want the labels back. Just ask Jim (Crew Chief) who's in front of you.

 

[JamesB]

I see no value whatsoever in the labels. I used to race IRL and i often did not know who was in front out of a large field with similar cars, what difference does it make, you want them behind you not in front of you. There are no real life banners floating around above the cars and likely no-one telling you who they are. In the sim I have a HUD that tells me who is in front, who is behind and if I want, a whole load of Simhub options to give me all that info without arcade looking labels floating round the track and Crew Chief continuously reminds you anyway!

As for the other issues raised in this thread, yes the physics things should be fixed if they are really broken that badly but the labels, REALLY? They are a priority for you!?!

 

[prceurope]

***EDIT***
This clip just came out today... when opinion leaders are jumping ship...
From Ermin Hamidovic channel:

.

Oh jeez, I thought I had escaped Ermin. I somehow wasted 15 mins of my life listening to this mind-numbing dumbell pumper tell his adoring minions how he bought every sim title he owns at a steep discount, calling himself the least knowledgeable while demonstrating he is simply incapable of forming an opinion that's rooted in any kind of reality. He only jumped on the "rF2 physics are broken" bandwagon once he'd had a bad experience at the hands of aliens + exploit setups in rF2 and simultaneously seen that posting ACC content made his view count go up.

The bottom line is this: you can criticize rF2 for its flaws and it has several glaring ones that, guess what, you are not required to exploit and you are entitled to drive around a virtual track and enjoy the feel for what it is.

While we're on the subject, I remain largely unconvinced that ACC is an accurate representation of driving physics. It feels nothing like any GT or Super Trofeo I've ever driven (never raced, just casually lapped and never in anger). If there are any GT3 drivers on here, please weigh in.

By contrast, the same car/track combo in rF2 feels more like the car is actually in contact with the track and not a hovercraft with transducers. I have never been able to get any tyre scrub ffb in ACC, and it seems to me that ACC aliens have memorized visual cues. I would love to plug rF2's ffb into ACC. Let that be clear.

 

[avenger82]

If there are any GT3 drivers on here, please weigh in.

Real GT3 racing drivers say ACC is the most realistic.

As for the lack of labels they should just fix it. It’s a game not RL. In RL you don’t have a HUD etc., but vast majority of people use it. You can always disable labels as well as the HUD if it’s immersion breaking, but don’t force people to install and rely on third party software just for one missing feature. What if you don’t have a headset or speech recognition doesn’t work for some reason and no there buttons left on a wheel to bind?

 

[mantasisg]

I thought I was the only one who didn't want the labels back. Just ask Jim (Crew Chief) who's in front of you.

Sorry for offtopic, I just want to reply to this specific point. Also at the same time to what Aidan wrote.

I say it is simply irrelevant in terms of realism if you have or you have not player names over the cars. I could say the same about crew-chief that it is not always true to life, could say same about having any game interface bits during the racing, could say same about not having to go to the pits or actual garage to escape, could say the same about being spawned right at the starting grid instead of having to arrive to it and so on.... The single point that matters is that people usually (well at least I do) like to know whom they are battling at the moment, and not everyone likes crew chief concept (being told about stuff all the time). Names over the cars does not interefere with simulation at all, rather maybe with immersion to someone who tries to fool himself that he is actually racing in real life. I don't see a point to be against hovering names to be in a sim, while it could be just switched on or off. I always enjoyed how it was in AC - name, nationality flag and color code for ping level and all of it neatly right above the car.

Rant mode: And I am way more passionate about realistic physics, glamorous visuals, sexy sounds and great experience but don't care that much to be fooling myself that I am not next to PC screen. I don't really understand why so many sirmacers wants exactly that, but has little enthusiasm to understand actual reality, perhaps it gets in a way to being immersed - the less you know about reality the easier to get immersed in virtuality.

 

[davehenrie]

Real GT3 racing drivers say ACC is the most realistic.

I would expect that since a small amount of a team's income probably derives from the license and most contracts would tend to include language the prevents disparaging income streams. I would also expect it since ACC has more GT3 specific code, such as the the Tire Slip lights on some cars, rF2 does not support that feature so the lights become merely a mimic of the rpm lights. I also know at least one GT3 driver attempted to supply S397 with input and apparently left in frustration. So.... Not surprised the GT3 drivers feel ACC is the better product, for specifically GT3 racing, it most likely is.

 

[Filip]

...While we're on the subject, I remain largely unconvinced that ACC is an accurate representation of driving physics. It feels nothing like any GT or Super Trofeo I've ever driven (never raced, just casually lapped and never in anger). If there are any GT3 drivers on here, please weigh in.
By contrast, the same car/track combo in rF2 feels more like the car is actually in contact with the track and not a hovercraft with transducers. I have never been able to get any tyre scrub ffb in ACC...

You are mixing physics accuracy with ffb accuracy.
Driving physics usually means how virtual vehicle behaviour depends on players wheel and pedal inputs in certain conditions compared to real vehicle with same inputs in same conditions.
Ffb is how players wheel behaviour and feel depends on virtual vehicle behaviour.

 

[The Iron Wolf]

I could say the same about crew-chief that it is not always true to life

Just an FYI, we offer a "Realistic mode" in Crew Chief, that disables the spotter on road courses, and allows per class message customization. Say if your series does not allow telemetry (most of them) you can disable all the unrealistic messages. Realism and human like behavior is the number one thing I focus on in the CC effort. There's also "Delayed responses" option, so that for things that need calculation, response is not immediate. A lot of work is put in to keep this stuff real, but unsurprisingly, very few people utilize it

 

[hitm4k3r]

You are mixing physics accuracy with ffb accuracy.
Driving physics usually means how virtual vehicle behaviour depends on players wheel and pedal inputs in certain conditions compared to real vehicle with same inputs in same conditions.
Ffb is how players wheel behaviour and feel depends on virtual vehicle behaviour.

The thing is that there is a link between the two things, especialy with FFB that get's derived from the physics, wich is the fact in rF2 aswell as in ACC. I am not sure if you have watched Niels Heusinkveldts video about ACC, but there is a huge amount of latency/input lag. I am not sure if Pro drivers would regard the sim as that good if they knew that they had that huge amount of delay. I've also watched Nicki Thiems videos and he likes ACC aswell, but it doesn't make rF2 physics broken. There are things that work well and there are things that don't. But that's to be expected with a physics models that are an abstraction of reality.

Considering that the majority of people who drive racing sims with a wheel use FFB, I would argue that the discrepancy between the visual information, the feedback through the wheel aswell as the input is really something that I wouldn't call ready for professional use in ACC. ACC is a good product, but it has it's own issues, same as rF2. That said, I haven't come across a single product that shares the same fidely as rF2 and I would argue that this is the reason that it's still recieving good reviews depsite it's shortcommings.

On the topic of labels and HUD design. Am I the only one who wants to get rid of this stuff? I am all for helping tools if there is no substitute in the virtual world. But there is so much information displayed that a real driver wouldn't have, that I feel that this genre has moved too far with babysitting. Labels are mostly usefull for league admins, so I would give that option in replays, but right on track, I would like to be everything as raw/simple as possible. Uncertainty is one of the factors that makes racing exciting.

 

[avenger82]

I also know at least one GT3 driver attempted to supply S397 with input and apparently left in frustration

Unfortunately that’s way too common with S397. Very rarely fundamental physics flaws are fixed. They will eventually put it on TODO list, but nothing will be done for years if ever. People say it’s due to UI and competition system development etc .- that it’s a matter of priorities.
But physics engine development and fixing complex issues requires completely different skills than UI development. I’m afraid there are just no devs capable of that (except Michael Borda who works on tires) in S397.

 

[prceurope]

Real GT3 racing drivers say ACC is the most realistic.

Please allow me to propose a rephrasing:

Some real GT3 racing drivers who compete in SRO and the GT World esports series say ACC is the most realistic representation of what a GT race is like.

Others, like David Pittard, have gradually walked back pre-season comments such as, "ACC is closer to the simcade (GT Sport) end of the spectrum."

With Fanatec now the title sponsor of SRO/GT World, you can rest assured the contracts will seek to prevent any comments that could be interpreted as disparaging or curtailing the commercial potential of ACC/Kunos, SRO, manufacturer, team, circuit operator or Fanatec. Gone are the days where drivers can speak their mind. If any litigious / SJW type goes through Nicki Thiim's YouTube videos and transcribes/clips his comments, he will lose most of his sponsors if not his AMR seat. I don't think Andy Palmer (whom I used to work with) would have cared but I am certain Tobias Moers would at least force him to remove some of the videos and I personally think Nicki is hilarious and much-needed relief from the automaton drivers of the 2020s. What's the over/under on "gentleman driver" being a term that makes it out of this decade?

I would expect that since a small amount of a team's income probably derives from the license and most contracts would tend to include language the prevents disparaging income streams.

Absolutely 100% correct. Having negotiated driver contracts on the sponsor side (BRDC is a formidable org FWIW) I can assure you this is the case and that most drivers are only reminded of them by their managers once they've crossed the proverbial white line with all 4 tyres. One of my customers sponsors a driver who drives (factory) for two rival Japanese manufacturers in different championships. This driver has become a PR ninja despite not speaking English as a native language.

You are mixing physics accuracy with ffb accuracy.
Driving physics usually means how virtual vehicle behaviour depends on players wheel and pedal inputs in certain conditions compared to real vehicle with same inputs in same conditions.
Ffb is how players wheel behaviour and feel depends on virtual vehicle behaviour.

I'm not mixing them. I carefully selected my words: "an accurate representation of driving physics." I can load a sim, park on a hill and let the car coast down the hill with zero wheel and zero pedal inputs, resting my fingertips on a 30Nm wheel and perceive the representation of the driving physics as the car rolls over the track, kerbs, grass/gravel and into the wall.

As @hitm4k3r wrote:

The thing is that there is a link between the two things, especialy with FFB that get's derived from the physics, wich is the fact in rF2 aswell as in ACC. I am not sure if you have watched Niels Heusinkveldts video about ACC, but there is a huge amount of latency/input lag. I am not sure if Pro drivers would regard the sim as that good if they knew that they had that huge amount of delay.

Yes. And they do know about the latency - but they also win 6,000 EUR each GT World weekend during the post-quali ACC/Fanatec official esports event.

FFB represents the physics of both the unsprung mass and the sprung mass (weight transfer, inertia, etc), and the tyre contact with the track/ground (and of course chassis//body contact with the environment, which presumably includes inputs such as wind). This is not too dissimilar to how Virtual Instruments and Effects in music software seek to represent the physics of real-world instruments and I have listened to musicians and sound engineers debate whether a cello sounds fake or is resonating authentically, and whether 95% of listeners either can tell or care. I have also heard real recorded cellos sound fake and synthesized/sampled cellos sound real. But, once I visited Bang & Olufsen in Struer and met their panel of auditory experts, I realized my training in a music conservatory qualified me to comment only on preference over precision. Yet another reminder that expert is one of the most overused words in the English language.

"An expert does not just predict what will happen if you do A and then B, but precisely how it happens, or how the best theory on the planet believes it happens and why it will happen every time. However, as soon as we enter the realm of theory, the expert becomes a leading proponent."

Back OT: rF2 obviously has things to fix. Its ability to consistently put a grin and beads of sweat on my face is not one of those things.

 

[pas74]

 

[avenger82]

View attachment 38489

Considering we are at rF2 forum - rF2 is on the right

 

[Kelju_K]

The "physics issues" are not a bug that you can correct by writing few lines of code.
Most people here judging them have not been around long enough to understand how they came to be.
Ermin himself tells that he got in to sim racing by dirt rally. that's baby years in this hobby, and his disappointment is like honeymoon that ended and now he's filing for divorce, after knowing the bride for few months before he proposed in the first place.
The issues are due "too" complex tire model design, that has left holes to exploit it.
It can be corrected only by making it even more complex, not rewriting few lines of code.

That complex mess was left behind by ISI, after they noticed that the then existing tire model, that btw had no holes to exploit, didn't handle vertical loads in ovals, to the degree that satisfied ISI.
So they decided to make new, more complex model that can handle anything that you throw at them.
It overwhelmed them, and they quitted in front of an obstacle, and sold the remains to S397
NO one forces you to use the exploits they offer atm.
They are there because of the complexity of the tire model, not lack of it. So it takes time to get them honed out. AND things are progressing as we speak. S397 has proven that they aim for getting everything being perfect, by the fixes made just recently to the tiremodel of the GT3 cars. BUT understand that the reasons for their (exploits) existence is not so simple that you can halt everything else to get it fixed quickly.
So asking them to not keep doing other development work while there are issues somewhere is absurd.

 

[Jeremy Talbot]

The "physics issues" are not a bug that you can correct by writing few lines of code.
Most people here judging them have not been around long enough to understand how they came to be.
Ermin himself tells that he got in to sim racing by dirt rally. that's baby years in this hobby, and his disappointment is like honeymoon that ended and now he's filing for divorce, after knowing the bride for few months before he proposed in the first place.
The issues are due "too" complex tire model design, that has left holes to exploit it.
It can be corrected only by making it even more complex, not rewriting few lines of code.

That complex mess was left behind by ISI, after they noticed that the then existing tire model, that btw had no holes to exploit, didn't handle vertical loads in ovals, to the degree that satisfied ISI.
So they decided to make new, more complex model that can handle anything situation that you throw at them.
It overwhelmed them, and they quitted in front of an obstacle, and sold the remains to S397
NO one forces you to use the exploits they offer atm.

Beg to differ mate, you're forced to use those exploits if you race online, especially in vec otherwise you fall to the back of the pack.

Another thing that pisses me off is the tyres. Supposedly they are amazing, then why do they lose 1.5 seconds plus after 5 laps or so? Also the ridiculous way you need to turn the steering wheel to gain grip is just crazy, far from realism.

Sorry for the rant but after 2k hours I've had enough. S397 just aren't doing enough to fix the physics bugs, only the graphical ones which really aren't important

 

[pilAUTO]

Sorry for the rant but after 2k hours I've had enough.

We have all shown excessive patience over the past 4 years or more.

At the same time the chosen/prioritized developments are overall very long, but worse much worse and it's personal, the choice of the developments to prioritize is in my opinion very bad, which is frustrating (of course everyone will have their own personal appreciation of this point).


To be really honest, I sure wish rFactor 2 got better and better, as I've always been a very big fan, but if an Assetto Corsa 2 comes out, with slightly better physics than ACC, the Nurburgring Nordschleife, the car content resembling that of Assetto Corsa 1, and all the qualities of ACC .......

In my case it will be GOODBYE rFactor 2.

Tired of being patient, waiting for the AI, physics, performance optimization and VARIED quality content (FWD, street cars, AWD ......).