i've tried the Vee in RF2 first and the car behaviour is just bad. No grip at the rear, always throwing the back end out, with 70km/h! and cold or hot tires, softest supension etcpp doesnt matter. In AMS its nice to drive, very predictable, funny little VW. I will not touch this "thing" in Rf2 again . But the Pumas and Moros can be really fun.
Try it In my mind it is one of those cars which you must at first take baby steps and take notes for a while, but after that you pretty much can drive normally, well perhaps still have to use higher level of concentration and don't get too confident, perhaps know your ways with a setup too. So yeah it is not a no brainer car, it really is one of those cars which some guys after driving it will come and say "hey do you know that harder doesn't always mean more realistic bla bla bla". It is that car.
BS, my first car was this https://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NzY1WDEwMjQ=/z/xGcAAOSwdutc4Xgg/$_72.JPG and guess what you could go with >70km/h in a curve .. ok, ~115 was max SPEED! Serious, drive the vee in AMS, it feels similar but better, in RF the behaviour is unpredictable. If you guys think a car has to be like that, have fun.
It's always entertaining, to see People, that probably never have driven the real Car, discuss about it's Behaviour in a Simulation. I must go and get some Popcorn.
Will be cool if Reiza add the front lights for the P52, with the incoming Nordschleife, that car plus the GT3's, MCR, ISI Clio & Megane will have a pseudo VLN grid.
The Vee has to be petted with constant light gas bumps. Very gentle. The bias of the differential is completely open. Zero downforce front and back. Then the minimal tires. Yes, it will be difficult. But if you master it, you can drive any car. Whether it is realistic? No idea! I have never driven that thing. I probably will never. But you can learn a lot from that "thing". I love it!
Honestly, I do not think at all that the physics of this car allows to simulate correctly the real car. I can not believe that this car is also unstable IRL.
Few pages back in this thread posted by Renato link to his post : https://forum.studio-397.com/index.php?threads/the-reiza-dlc.61402/page-28#post-982634 So yeah the car can spin. Once you learn to be careful with your inputs, brake earIy (heal and toe helps imo) in a strait line and no trail braking, it become easier to control the car, I don't really have a problems driving the Vee and actually find it fun and rewarding.
Formula Vee is fun car to drive in AMS and in rF2. I'm just wondering if anyone noticed an odd behaviour in rF2: with manual clutch enabled, the car will move on its own if in gear and with clutch disengaged. In 1st gear, even with brakes on! Does this happen to anyone else? It could be a part of the diffucult handling of the car in rF2 if the engine still sends power to the wheels while braking or coasting...
I find the car easier to keep on track and actually faster if you do all your braking early and get back on throttle to control the rear and rotation of the car.
The more things change, the more they stay the same For me this is a lesson in "don't move your hands". She moves her left hand up in preparation for the turn, then when the rear starts to come around she straightens her hands. In that position, with a bit of sliding, she might have been able to hold/catch it with straight steering and gentle throttle. Even may have done it previously, so was using experience to guide her inputs. But because her hands weren't straight on the wheel, her 'straight hands' still had the wheel itself pointing left. So then after a moment the car starts to go further, and from there she's lost it. Passenger cars are designed to be stable. Sometimes very close to neutral, but still stable. Otherwise there'd be a lot more crashes on the road. The FVee isn't a beginner's car, it's a training car. Same with the Skip Barber. It's easy to think a training car means it's easy to drive, when it's actually the opposite - it's supposed to be difficult to control well, so you can spot and learn from your mistakes at relatively low speed. There's a reason people drive these things after hours, sometimes a couple of days, of theory, starting on simple low speed layouts and building towards driving around a real track and eventually racing. And through all that learning they also have analysis from onboard video (as above) so they can learn what they did wrong in certain scenarios. You can't walk in off the street to a driving school and jump on the track in 10 mins, because you'll spin on every second corner if you haven't done it before. The weight transfer you're forced to control properly, by braking in a straight line and letting the nose come up again before you start turning into the corner, is applicable to many other cars that don't put you in a spin so quickly if you get it wrong. Try the 60s F3 in rF2, if you brake too much into a turn it will get sideways, but you can catch it and continue albeit while losing time. To drive it fast you need to have some weight transfer but only a limited amount, but you can drive it completely oblivious to that fact. The Skip and obviously FVee you can't ignore it. I've seen quite a few crashes in televised racing where the drivers, semi professional, not amateurs, had a low speed (60-80kph, one that comes to mind was out of the final corner at Adelaide) spin that would be considered unrealistic if it happened in a game. The intriguing thing for me is that you've tried the car, let's say for more than 2 minutes, and you found it totally different to the AMS version. Yet the same people developed the car for both games, and the guy in charge said they were very similar. This is why I think analysis has to be data driven - perception can simply vary too much to draw solid conclusions from.
