And boy, are many people accustomed to AC, it’s one of the most popular sims.īasically this is all just popular opinion. There is also a huge factor: people tend to say the sim they are the most accustomed to is the most realistic. Those same people will ironically use the unrealistic FFB effects in AC. I mean AC has huge problems as a sim and yet people praise it to hell and back because it’s popular and it looks/feels pretty good. Maybe rF2 is hailed as the best because it looks, sounds and feels like the best, even though maybe it isn’t. Maybe project cars 1 is a great sim, held down for the wrong reasons because people just don’t feel like it’s that good. But I have to admit there is a slight disconnect on extreme cases, the sound isn’t quite right, the visuals just have that uncanny valley feel as well, the ffb is quite informative but very weird to most people. I find it pretty good, better than AC in many cases. In fact in many ways even project cars 1 is measurably better than the competition, and yet it feels terrible to most people. Automobilista feels great to me, and as criticized as Project Cars (especially 1) is I definitely find it more believable than Assetto Corsa. Basically, it looks like the best model, it sounds like the best model, it feels like the best model. The fact that it is close to rFactor Pro, which F1 teams use as a training tool, lends credibility to the argument as well. to many people it just feels right, more than any other game, and that makes it easier to not challenge the assumption of it being the best model around. That’s a good selling point for racing teams and it sounds good to simracers, so it’s a good marketing device.Īs to why rF2’s model in particular is considered the best, well. Both have pros and cons, but in the end the dynamic tyre model simply allows more situations, more extreme cases, more experimentation. It’s an age old problem in simracing, static vs dynamic engines. And yet, rF1 uses a simple look up table (LUT) and curve system to approximate tyre behavior. I’ve seen some tests conducted on rF1 with the same driver using the same car on the same track with the same setup and weather conditions IRL and in-game, and they found the laps were almost identical. Also as you said, just because it’s the most advanced tyre model doesn’t mean it’s the best.Īaaaannd that’s pretty much where we’re at. There are too many variables to account for, it’s almost impossible to isolate the tyre. So I guess much easier way would be to let a few independent pro drivers compare handling in sims using the same car, setup and on similar track conditions.Īs you said, accuracy in the tyre model is very hard to measure, maybe impossible. I know there are industrial machines that measure some of the above parameters at different loads and slip angles but they are not that accurate. But in my opinion it was pretty good even with previous tire model in GT3 pack.ĭoes anyone have any insight in regards to tire models and handling accuracy in general, in most popular sims? I guess it’s hard to objectively measure and it would access to detailed telemetry including tires temperature, flex and behavior when loosing traction, sliding, and regaining grip. To be fair in RF2, when I drive the cars that have recently updated tires, like in Endurance Pack, the handling feels realistic. The hardest part is stimulating behavior at and over the limit. Even simpler engines based on old ISI motor2 are capable of producing better, accurate results (good example is handling in Automobilista). I mean pCars 1 had advanced SETA tire model, but cars handling was way off in some cases. Even if it's true, it doesn't mean it's most realistic in terms of handling. I've read rF2 tire model (and physics in general) are most advanced at least amongst commercial sims.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |