The REIZA DLC.....

LokiD said:
There's lots of stuff reiza fixed and rf2 hasn't still
Click to expand...
what are you doing s397? Take a break from graphic features and fix the game ^^
You should organize a poll here with "What are your top priorities as a rfactor 2 user? What would you like us at S397 to do/add/improve/fix with the game?" with multiple choice and let's say between 2-3 selectable choice for each user here. I'd really like to see results of such a poll.

I know UI is taking much of your time but at least consider the option!
See you for the next roadmap.
 
Don't get me wrong rf2 has done wonders with the tyre model and those that are on the newer gt cars are the best in the business. But that's a gt tyre we need tyres that suit historic like the puma and a tyre that fits the vee. These tyre atm aren't up to scratch. Anyway I've said enough I think.

But yes s397 need to start fixing core issues in the game that reiza have fixed years ago.
 
I think criticism may go along the way, but let S397 run the thing, the best products so far were visioned by small groups of people.

Speaking of things that "reiza fixed and rF2 hasn't still". What is the logic ? How do you fix, if you haven't even released yet ? Isn't that called developing. Also does AMS have wheels blur feature ? Couldn't it be the case when one steps up, and faces new challenges there ? Wheel blur is great little example there - don't have it and you don't have a problem to solve, or have it and have additional problem to solve. < That is the main principle all of you that compare polish level of AMS and rF2. It is like comparing how easily one has lifted an object, but pointing out how other struggles even though object seems to be the same, but the mass is way greater. The thing that you are reaching for is speaking against expanding, because it brings challenges.
 
rF2, AMS and ACC really deserve dynamic gearbox and drive-train flex simulation imo. It's something that many people may not even be aware is missing but, the more you pay attention to details, the more a lack of such physics modeling becomes a missing link in the system. Update: ACC now has some drive-train effects working (since v0.6); not quite enough flex yet imo but, getting there.

For those with a good motion system, the titles that have effective elastic-modeling (iRacing and RaceRoom), truly stand out because the effects can be felt so directly and physically. The more powerful (and vintage) cars take on a whole new character and provide a much more immersive experience when the connection to the virtual car is enhanced with the proper physical modeling but, even track-day or novice-class cars can benefit.

iRacing is far ahead of the pack in this regard, as their model seems to be quite advanced judging by the subtle ways that it interacts with both the engine-load behavior related to tire-surface contact (bumps, curbs, short-term traction-loss) and even, over-fueling & electronic-assist conditions (engine stumbles, rev-limiter, rich fuel, etc.).

I'm a bit surprised that these effects get so little attention, especially when many sim-racers want more realism in physical behavior in general. Drive-train elasticity is one of the most fundamental aspects in race-car behavior as it relates to the mechanical interaction between the power and drive-trains.
 
Last edited:
RaceNut said:
rF2, AMS and ACC really deserve dynamic gearbox and drive-train flex simulation imo. It's something that many people may not even be aware is missing but, the more you pay attention to details, the more a lack of such physics modeling becomes a missing link in the system. Update: ACC now has some drive-train effects working (since v0.6); not quite enough flex yet imo but, getting there.

For those with a good motion system, the titles that have effective elastic-modeling (iRacing and RaceRoom), truly stand out because the effects can be felt so directly and physically. The more powerful (and vintage) cars take on a whole new character and provide a much more immersive experience when the connection to the virtual car is enhanced with the proper physical modeling but, even track-day or novice-class cars can benefit.

iRacing is far ahead of the pack in this regard, as their model seems to be quite advanced judging by the subtle ways that it interacts with both the engine-load behavior related to tire-surface contact (bumps, curbs, short-term traction-loss) and even, over-fueling & electronic-assist conditions (engine stumbles, rev-limiter, rich fuel, etc.).

I'm a bit surprised that these effects get so little attention, especially when many sim-racers want more realism in physical behavior in general. Drive-train elasticity is one of the most fundamental aspects in race-car behavior as it relates to the mechanical interaction between the power and drive-trains.
Click to expand...


Answer me this then! Why is Iracings tyre model still rubbish Ten long years after I first tried it? Ten long years and still no good!! Tyres turning to mush after just one little skid!! In Iracing you can never muscle a car round the track as you have to drive well under the cars abilities due to melting your rubber the moment you slide. How would that work with drift cars hahaha.
 
@Supa i think its all about money and concept
a tire model that feels generic and can be raced by anyone
tire developing might be the most difficult to develop and maybe is against profit
can you imagine RF2 flatspoting in Iracing 6 hours race with a cheap wheel ? hahahaha
of course on the other hand its well known that RF2 physics developing stopped years ago and many things like rain for example are half baked.
and not only rain.
we really need more physics developing after UI and online comp take mature part on game
 
LokiD said:
Don't get me wrong rf2 has done wonders with the tyre model and those that are on the newer gt cars are the best in the business. But that's a gt tyre we need tyres that suit historic like the puma and a tyre that fits the vee. These tyre atm aren't up to scratch. Anyway I've said enough I think.

But yes s397 need to start fixing core issues in the game that reiza have fixed years ago.
Click to expand...

The question is, how easy it is to get hold of data for a vintage tyre compared to a modern GT tyre and if there is anything to "fix" in first place? I recently took the Eve out for a run at historic Spa and the experience is still sensational. It would be nice to get those cars up to scratch in the visual departement at some point with updated driver models, a few more polys here and there and the PBR shaders to get some nice metalic and chrome effects. The thing that those cars are missing from my POV is a new drive train model. The rest of the physics and core fatures for those cars are still superb.
 
I hate the ffb in ISI older cars I really did, there was no force in cornering, the ffb drop off when the tyres were sliding was far too much, so you just had a limp wheel at the limit all the time - like every car needed a max caster on it.. take the f2 and the fr3.5.. the 270z.. god dam awful ffb.
 
LokiD said:
I hate the ffb in ISI older cars I really did, there was no force in cornering, the ffb drop off when the tyres were sliding was far too much, so you just had a limp wheel at the limit all the time - like every car needed a max caster on it.. take the f2 and the fr3.5.. the 270z.. god dam awful ffb.
Click to expand...
Similar discussion was recently on ACC forums. Some people complained that FFB in ACC doesn't offer gradual drop off. Explanation from the devs was that GT3 tires don't offer much slip angle and it's all result of underlying physics and that people shouldn't expect AC street cars FFB on GT3.
Could it be that RF2 had that philosophy in older cars but changed it to more informative FFB by adding more signals to the wheel for more sensation while driving on limit?
Or is it only the result of newer CPM tires?
Or maybe it's just that different vehicles simply have different ffb? Is it to be expected to feel gradual ffb drop off on a FR3.5 tire?

Btw for F2 there is unrealistic caster option that can be added in tuning because people complained.

It would be interesting if someone who has a knowledge and willingness to scientifically compare ffb outputs of different vehicles.
 
Are we talking FFB or physics now? Loki mentioned that the tires aren't up to scratch on the historic cars wich is a completely different topic than FFB on the F2 and the FR3.5. That said, I was never a fan of the unrealistic caster option for the F2 and I hope S397 will never do such a mistake again just to cater towards people who don't like a certain type of car's FFB. When there is no such tuning option on the real cars it needs to be locked for the sim car. There also seems to be a misconception that FFB needs to feel consistent in sims. A 60s F1 car should feel very different than a tight modern OW like the FR3.5 and a FR3.5 should indeed feel different than a modern GT3 car. Those are completely different concepts and if we like the FFB of a car or not, has nothing to do with the core pyhsics. That's subjective perception.
 
NO car whatsoever goes limp in the wheel when cornering or when hit the slip angel - the mistake was in the physics of the old cars, and since been "fixed" with the new tyre model, even stated by micheal borda himself. Caster was the only way to fix that. paint it whatever way you like. No race cars steering rack goes limp like that any real life driver wouldn't drive the thingand chuck it back at the engineer!
 
Supa said:
Answer me this then! Why is Iracings tyre model still rubbish Ten long years after I first tried it? Ten long years and still no good!! Tyres turning to mush after just one little skid!! In Iracing you can never muscle a car round the track as you have to drive well under the cars abilities due to melting your rubber the moment you slide. How would that work with drift cars hahaha.
Click to expand...
Maybe because they invested more in the drive-train model than the tire-model (?) jk :p:D

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a total iRacing fanatic but, it does some things very well, like most sim's do; each has their own pro's & con's. It's just super obvious to me how rF2 and AMS (and AC) are missing drive-train dynamics, some of which I have experienced in RL cars I've owned and driven. It's just general physics in Auto-mechanical systems 101 and when motion is utilized, it's another stream of feedback like that felt through FFB-wheels. We tend to notice when our FFB is not working. :)
 
Hum maybe we should be honest each other...we like rF2 but the game itself is a mess...content quality isn't consistent at all, some cars still waiting to be update others never will, some tracks looks dated others are still to be finished...
Some features are still missing, from proper gearbox to drive-train, every new car/track release I think they are adding content that will need an update in the future like the old one...
Sometimes I think rF2 users are still here because loyal to an "idea" (what F2 could be) than to a real thing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top