Why is AC more popular than rF2 in terms of modding?

rF2 and iRacing never had grip (lateral force) issues. People calling it "iceracing" were (are?) referring to the narrow slip window, not a lack of cornering performance that actual grip would affect.

These discussions (about physics behaviour, not this thread's topic specifically) very quickly become simplified and increasingly errant versions of the truth, with individual perceptions building on misunderstandings and blanket statements about game xyz.


On "real" tyre data, don't forget the ~2016 QSA update prompted by new data making clear that certain assumptions made due to gaps in manufacturer data received to that point were wrong; calling into question the accuracy of really any tyre data (any model using a handful of sliptables will make assumptions too). Asserting a model that allows you to plug any data in, is a better option than one that forces you to "make" a tyre whose construction needs to be correct enough to not break or give silly behaviour, is ignoring the potential for unknowns. And that's a rare time we got a glimpse into the nature of data vs reality. Unfortunately I think some people only see that as a fault with rF2, because if no one admits anything is wrong with another game there's a presumption there isn't anything.


Anyway, rF2 has presented more challenges for modders and has undergone more changes over time too, which doesn't encourage commitment. Combined with only a passing interest in realism from players, it's not surprising the rF2 modding scene isn't busier. Mind you, to a large extent what we're missing isn't very high quality anyway.

 

No, iRacing had grip (lateral force) issues. It was (still is to lesser extent) way too punishing when driving at the limit . You mentioned it had “narrow slip (angle) window” that’s exactly lateral grip issue. In order to be fast you had to drive under the limit. Unlike IRL racing.

 

That's not lateral grip, but at this point we're arguing nomenclature. We both know what it's about.

 

Yeah perhaps it’s just semantics but it definitely had lateral grip issues(or whatever the right way to say it):

 

Oh and on the other hand rF2 GT tires allow too much slip angle: are not punishing enough when driving over the limit (again I may be not precise , but you know what I mean).

 

I think you being a little paranoid.
Actually never read the posts on that page when I posted that.
I never said AC is "about" eye candy, you just said that ?
I never even mentioned AC and I have nothing bad to say about it.

I said NFS "neon period" started eye candy , sure as sunlight was not physics and tyres.
Then Shift basically set the standard, if you wanted a good selling sim it had to look better.
Surely obvious to anyone the lengths S397 went to overhauling the visuals speaks volumes to that.

You another one does not know the meaning of the word.
Fanboys find no wrong in their own sim and everything wrong with others.
I could not be further from that truth.
My best quotes for rF2 my favourite sim are: " The Good The Bad The Ugly" "A face only a mother could love" " Warts n' All "
My best advice to people Physics/AI : " Find combos that work "
Can't be more honest then that.

Basically sims today are way too much over analyzing and not enough driving.

 

Ok then apparently I was too quick to judge you. I just assumed you referred to this thread’s title. I know you mentioned NFS as a good example of eye candy over realism, and assumed you meant AC is similar, but to lesser extent.
Many people in this forum discard other sims by saying they are not realistic while defending rF2 even if you point its weaknesses. When you try to defend other sims or try to criticize rF2 they may sarcastically say something like : “Thanks for a laughs”.

 

AC vs Rf2 tires isn't even close, if you drive hard into spins and slides you will notice a big difference in accuracy.

 

Yeah I agree. AC tires are so much better

 

do you mean this?

 

It is hard to understand what people mean when they talk about these things. Talking is one thing, but meanign is other thing.

I've got 2K hours in AC, most of them including modding. It is only so much that sim can do in terms of realism. It is good, but it doesn't go high enough. What people argue the most is the paradigm, the consesus accross the sim how things should be. There were people in AC who tried to go for slightly different paradigm, bit more unique physics. And people always disliked it there because you must follow singular paradigm. In rF2 it has never been a thing. You can have cars that handle and feel like in AC and like they do in iR if you try. But you can also get cars to behave and feel only the way it can in rF2 - realistic.

 

Same IRL imho.

The vast majority could not care less how and why their real road car does what it does.

They just want to drive it and enjoy it.

You don't have to be a engineer to do that

 

True, but I was referring more to "rF2 slip angles are wrong", "AC has too much grip", "rF2 tyres have too much wear", etc. Unfortunately this simplification (and arguing about which is better, no doubt) extends to many other topics too.

I would say though, arguments about physics realism don't extend to real life

 

Ah ah says it all lol ...

The rest I could answer by saying in 12 years not a single expert, engineer, physics guru, or anyone from ISI has ever explained to me why rF2 has such low rolling resistance

I mean if no one can answer me that on a basic level then why should the rest matter.

Still waitin' lol

P.S.
Same in LMU no one will answer me, go on stick your heads in the sand. lol
Cars in some pits you hit neutral and they just roll away no slopes.
Try it, hit N on top of Mulsanne see how far you coast.
Basic law of physics.

But that is not worthy of reply yet slip angles and everything else is.

I have my theory but one fact is undeniable.
Low rolling resistance will cause "push"
Because when you lift or lift and coast car is not deaccelerating as it should.

 

After a brief period of lucidity, I'm back to not knowing what you're talking about - or more specifically, why you're talking about that. "The rest I could answer ..."... the rest of what? What are you answering?

*shrug*

 

Hi.

I read one of your messages talking about the rolling resistance probably being unrealistic.

Out of curiosity I had done a test I think 2 or 3 weeks ago which combined both rolling resistance and the impact of wind resistance (aerodynamic drag), in the result seemed relatively realistic and credible to me.

I'm not saying that to contradict you but I'm going to test and the result seemed correct to me, and I'm not providing any figures or anything, I was just looking at how far the car was going.

Unfortunately, I'm not 100% sure anymore exactly how I did the test, but it must have been extremely close to this :

- a gt3 of some kind.
- hard tire.
- tire pressure at 140.
- Max fuel.
- Rear aerodynamic downforce lower by one notch or to a minimum.
- rest of the setup almost identical or basic setup.
- Approximately 200 km/h before releasing the accelerator and putting into neutral.
- release the accelerator approximately 200 m after the long straight bend which leads to the longest straight of the Nordschleife.

From memory, the car stops on its own and begins to back up 10 or 30 m maximum before the banner just before the slight left downhill turn.

What I'm saying here is not encrypted at all, but it will seem quite coherent given the parameters that I gave you, I found absolutely nothing shocking in the drop in speed at neutral according to its parameters in taking into account both rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. what you said is intriguing, but I didn't find anything strange about it without having fun doing scholarly calculations either.

Once again I'm not saying that to contradict you at all, is what you said to arouse my curiosity.

From memory, to schematize, at the exit of a right turn the straight line begins with a not very long descent, then a fairly long climb which allows the vehicle to slow down very significantly.

 

If we're going to talk about tyre rolling resistance (which, if I remember correctly from the last time this got mentioned, doesn't exist in rF2), any tests would need to not involve aero drag and not be on a hill. You can't judge/measure rolling resistance in that scenario.

 

Tyre rolling resistance is there. I sometimes wonder if people who make these claims have even had a look at the physics. One look in the tTool Realtime Batch Test sheet and you will see that there's a designated section for rolling resistance. One test on-track where you adjust some parameters in the [REALTIME] section of any tyre and you will find a change in the rolling resistance.

Do all tyre models have a fully accurate rolling resistance? Probably not, but likely in the ballpark. There is plenty of info out there with estimate numbers, so I highly doubt that they are getting this wrong.

 

tires with default setup are hot, so rubber goes quicker, add 20psi and they cool faster and last longer from my experience.

 

Since this is massively off topic anyway...

I went and did some testing with my not so smart methods, just observed basically. Just randomly switched parameters. Pretty much eliminated all drags and engine braking. Wasn't choosing perfectly flat track, because I was lookin for relative changes anyway. Basic conclusion for now is that rolling resistance works in rF2, I was able to get as much rolling ressistance fro mtires that it compensated removed aerodynamic drags and engine braking... so yes, a lot.

On the side note I was also able to make cars bite lateraly up to a point that it can roll over the car - works in rF2. I think it can never happen in AC. And it might be an X factor that to me is constantly missing from all simulations. And if it is possible to make it in some way that it wouldn't have bad hit on gneral handling of cars that i have made, I would love to add it to my cars. I liked to see in DevMode how visibly forces were acting on the chassis as tires were biting hard. In the past I have struggled with many cars physics to replicate what I have seen IRL footage and photography, the get cars so much visibly bending and twisting as they were griping weren't coming easily and often required specific setups, that may or may not have been fastest, it could be that tires were just always slipping through laterally just a tiny bit too much.

RL example of what I am talking about, have you ever seen that in AC? Also stop it at 0:24, it is not nice after that:

The question remains if effects that are realistic to my expectations are coming from parameters that still are within realism realm lol

I have ran the tests with skipbarber in Devmode. Default setup. 10% ffb cus it is crap now.

TemporaryBristleDamper = Damping for (Lat, Vert, Long) is the parameter that controls rolling resistance. TemporaryBristleSpring = Bristle spring rate for (Lat, Vert, Long) seemed to have an effect in combination with damping, but not sure. Rolling resistance seems to be coming either from vertical component, but also could be that longitudinal and vertical components influece each other.

haven't tested further with altering tire pressures, in my opinion low pressures doesn't affect rolling resistance enough, but maybe with some more vert+long damping, more than 1.0 values, the impact of tire pressures would emerge.... well as long as it doesn't impact badly car handling, which it might....


The rest about lateral rolling resistance, or bite, or lateral grip call it whatever:
I love this clip, I have been usign it as example for what I am looking for for years:


Look at this nervousness when car slides laterally, and how it is ready to pick up grip fast and firmly and change the firection. Of course there are many variables that plays into this, but it seems to be that this lateral component of bristledamper parameter is pretty much doing exactly this. Dark side it affects drifting, but on the bright side it feels like it hits hardest either at lower speeds and high yaw angles, pretty much if you hit 90deg slide at low speed it will probably bite the hardest, so perhaps at usual racign speeds it wouldn't spoil the handling. Excited to experiment.

Same thing a little older car:


Don't you think that these things, these slides, at lower speeds, at hingher andles are never quite realistic in ANY sim. The difference is that it some sims it probably is achievable, while in others it isn't. To me AC is one of worst offenders to that, cus it has very simplified physics for sliding a car, there just aren't enough things that are happening.

And you might say what about IRL drifting, cars are not rolling over or anything. They might not be rolling over, but in top drifting series cars are rolling hard, their stiff suspension and grippy tires puts huge stresses on the chassis, they do have roll, they need to induce a lot of wheelspin for the tires not to bite, but they do need some bite eventually when they are making a switch of direction, you can pretty much see forces beint sent to chassis: