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

This goes for pretty much everything, I feel. rF2 is a marvelous piece of coding, but to get it to work properly-... that is an enormous hassle. And that is why AC is more popular.

 

@FAlonso In AC there is definitely an issue. I was experimenting this exact thing this weekend on rF2 while experimenting with rolling resistance. Once tires has enough grip for a given car, once given stiff enough lateral direction damping tire bristles will roll wheel and whole car so hard that they can be adjusted to roll over anyhow you see it fit. I think msot physics devs will adjusts such variable in such way that rolling over would be least likely, it is up to discussion how much is realistic - but the fact is it works like it should. I wonder how it affects slip curves.

There were couple of moments this car got on two wheels during this lap. This can be simulated in rF2:

 

Other engines have no where near the rolling resistance of ISIMotor.
Not even close.

Try this. ....

Old Monza AC and rF2
Historic F1 no wings
Warm car up then Full speed into Ascari.
Just before mid corner lift off completely so both cars immediately pick up understeer.

In AC you can one handed bring the car back on line and full throttle out.
Like candy from a baby !

In rF2 it is like egg shells ! A totally different animal that feels way more real.
You steer the car to the outside of corner knowing you will need grass just to make it.

Have you ever had a road car jump out of gear at a 100mph corner ?
Well I have and I tell you this is more similar to rF2 then any sim out there.

Try it !

imho the rolling resistance is causing more push you can feel it.

 

I don't think ISI and Kunos are same sentence in this regard
ISI invented this rolling resistance to solve bigger issue.
At least this time around making a fool of myself ( does not bother me the slightest ) I got a believable answer.
Only thing about that is rF2 is the easiest to flip a car in ? Is it not ?
You only have to look at big crashes of AIU or real drivers to see how easy cars rotate and heights they can gain is nothing like any other sim, example GTR2 is heavier for sure.
I mean sure you can set a model settings and tweak it to roll but I am talking about dynamic realtime physics aspect which also plays into it with ISIMotor.

This is the second area, gravity loool
No one will ever convince me rF2 is not "lighter" then all the rest.
That is why it is so reactive with the slightest terrain changes.
again just test same car same track same kerb or whatever in AC and rF2.

rF2 simply gets way more air, my question for 12 years is how and why.

I believe I know the why for both.
Simply put rF2 cars feel more alive and that is a good thing no matter how it is achieved.
I mean it is not much, I guess barely anyone notices it ? ...well I sure can.
How does rF2 car climb a woodpile or steps ?
Seriously you never asked yourself why ?
I mean I know it's primarily because there are no barriers but this is not the whole answer.

One thing I don't like about, LMU how they blocked off everything.
Free roaming tracks is simply another level of realism.
One day a engine will be able to do both without flag issues or other problem.

 

12 years doubting "gravity" and still haven't tested it? Amazing.

 

yes, i was referring to the GT3 ones.

 

Renault Clio 5 Cup mod for AC and rf2 shows the difference in sims. The tires are better in rf2.

 

While I'm of the opinion the rF2 model can, and often will, produce better behaviour over the range of loads and angles a tyre will experience, you really can't judge two sims based on a single mod. You could have 3 teams do their best simulation of a car in rF2 and end up with 3 differently handling cars.

 

Same mod by same maker can have few different handling versions of same car. If they have few entirely different tire choices. Then obviously massive setup changes also can alter them a lot. Still essence should remain, chassis the same. rF2 has rather decent chassis simulation by the way, which is not just plain geometry (I get though dealing with sub-bodies might already be too complex for some)...

It would be interesting to have a study where few makers would make same car on same sim. Then examine the differences and ask for reasoning.

I agree with Lazza, the handling part is way less important than things that car does. The range of stuff how much physics can do, and how much in the same physical language as IRL is what makes the simulation better.

However, 20 000 people in AC vs barely 500 people in rF2 shows, that needs of people for simulation are saturated at level of AC. Although obviously there are like 50more things that influence AC being so extremely popular. It is a good simracing title, so no need to be jealous. But at the same time, it is not right for rF2 not to have at least four times more attention than it has right now. And if being honest, downplaying rF2 physics, doesn't just show ignorance and lack of any type of knowledge and desire to get to know things, but also is as low as kicking somebody laying down unconscious.

 

Everything we need is here

Spoiler

https://store.steampowered.com/app/3058630/Assetto_Corsa_EVO/

 

if it's based off the Unreal engine like ACC then it has a lot to do to drive better than rf2. To me AC is better than ACC.

 

It's easy to conclude that the more realism the less fun for most people. Just see the number of threads complaining about too much realism. For simracers, there seems to be a point where more realism is too much.

@FAlonso Now I see, this thread was a marketing stunt for AC2.

 

oh, and:

Typo accepted!

 

The ACEVO motor is kunos' own, an evolution of the AC motor. This time there will be no problem with VR.

 

Car showroom screens looks amazing. Track screenshots doesn't look very good.

"Everything we need is here"... yes but not there, it is here.

 

I would love the historic stuff from AC makes it's way across. But sadly the AC community can be very protective over their mods and want them to stay in AC only.

 

It depends on every creator who made the stuff. Community controls nothing except vibe. There were few car models with not only given permissions, but also offered to be taken to rF2. And they weren't. At least yet...

There has been more success with tracks being ported to rF2, but I would also add that not every time the ports were great...

Most creators asked permissions for conversions wants content to be made up to decent standard. When there is lack of such examples or even anti-quality stuff being made, eventually they are less eager to allow that.

 

https://www.drivingitalia.net/uploa...1080.jpg.e3f85f08674240e27d7ae3f92ab9f83b.jpg

 

Track screenshots doesn't look very good. Just like AC, apparently ACEVO will only look good in sunny noon.

But lets have these AC promo threads and posts flowing. Who cares. If AC2 will actually be good, there should be no need for gaslighting.

LOL

The real fight for you guys will be to conquer AC1. We know how it goes with simracers. They get extremely fixated with one metaverse. And has hard time to move anywhere else, except if there is major major major superiority in everything - content, modding, features, the way cars drives (acevo needs to be exactly like AC no worse, no better, otherwise the unwashed mass won't accept it as it will smell different, unless being just slightly better by means of a bit more functionality, but exact same handling).

I doubt ACEVO will be moddable, but who knows.

Better be gaslighting 20000 of AC users to turn heads on ACEVO, then 500 rF2 users.