Automobilista 2 | Physics Updates and New Content in v1.3

Automobilista 2 November 2021 Update 01.jpg
A significant physics update for Automobilista 2 is coming this month, along with plenty of new content.

Reiza Studios has shared the second batch of news concerning what is coming to Automobilista 2 this month via a post on their official forums. Much of the post centred around their improvements to the driving physics and force feedback. Version 1.3 will allow Reiza to create much more elaborate and authentic driveline physics for the cars in the game. There is also going to be a new default FFB profile that is selectable from the settings menu. A bug found by Reiza has delayed the release of the update, but it is still expected to be public before the end of the month.

Content was another focus of the post, and the highlight of the upcoming content is part 2 of the Racin' USA DLC. Part 1 included GTE cars plus three American tracks, and part 2 will follow a similar format. Three distinct years of Indycar/Champcar will be added to the title as part of the Formula USA car class, plus three tracks. Cleveland and Watkins Glen are the first two confirmed tracks, and there is a third that Reiza is unable to share quite yet due to licensing.

The two Volkswagen cars that are currently available as part of a demo version of AMS2 will also be added to the main game this month.

Finally, another significant bit of news is that Reiza is rolling out the first iteration of a multiplayer ranking system. Players will begin to earn ratings that will help group them more evenly for online racing.

Hit the spoiler button below to read part 2 of the Automobilista 2 November Development Update (source).

Part 2 of our November Development Update has finally arrived with some fresh good news for Automobilista 2 in our final development sprint of 2021!

And what a run of weeks it has been so far - not only have we managed to hit some of the important developments we had planned for the month, we also managed to find and are in process of resolving some other significant issues along the way - in fact our plan had been to publish this article already with our first big game update of November, however spotting a rather sizeable physics issue just a few hours before the update was meant to be deployed has forced us back to the drawing board for a few more days - the new Automobilista V1.3 update is expected to arrive towards the end of this week.

On the plus side, V1.3 will now pack even further value to what is already a landmark update for AMS2 - so let´s get into some of what we have been working on these past few weeks!

AMS2 Demo With VW TSI Cup by Acelerados Now Available

Our collaboration with Volkswagen Brasil and the Acelerados Channel has come to fruition this past week with the release of the AMS2 Demo featuring the new VW TSI Cup, bringing the VW Polo & Virtus production cars to AMS2 - more details on this release here.

The delay on our new game update unfortunately has meant the addition of these cars to the main game have also been slightly held back - do look forward to their arrival later this week however with the release of V1.3!

The Big Physics Overhaul of AMS2 V1.3

As touched upon in Pt1 of the November Dev Update, physics & FFB are receiving a pretty substantial overhaul this month similarly to what happened earlier in the year in the V1.2 dev cycle, maximizing further knowledge of the Madness tire & driveline models we have gathered in recent months.

Beginning with the latest finding - the issue spotted just this weekend forcing the delay of the update is nothing more than a simple syntax error that resulted in some of the tire models in AMS2 using components that didn´t belong to them. This error - the type you hope not to spot years into the development of the sim - is nevertheless the type of thing that can happen when you are working on someone else´s technology, and part of a learning curve that sometimes can stretch longer than one would have preferred. The silver lining here of course is that spotting and correcting this error will lead to even further progress to what was already proving a very extensive revision of all tire models in AMS2, which combined with the driveline developments have already led to all cars driving substantially better than the current release to one degree or another.

On to the driveline developments: as with tires, we have been constantly learning more details about the complex driveline system in the Madness Engine - a physical model based on masses, friction coefficients, stiffnesses and pairings, which if not configured correctly for each car can easily result in various handling issues.

The first major development here is fine tuning clutch LSD disc friction coefficients to eliminate the infamous "sticky" behavior of the differential on some cars, which could lead to the car balance suddenly changing mid-corner; the differential operation is much smoother now, remaining closed when it should, and opening immediately and yet gradually based on your effective locking amount from preload, ramp angles and amount of clutches.

The second important improvement was made to the clutch engagement formula itself - thus far, preload setting in LSD diffs had far too much importance and ramp angles relatively very little. Reason for this laid in a bug in the underlying mathematical formula combining forces from these two setup factors. With that legacy bug corrected, it´s been possible and in fact necessary to update all default differential setups to more sensible ones.

One neat example is the Caterham clutch LSD that could now get inspiration from a real-life Titan LSD designed for Caterhams: a 30/90 ramp configuration with preload adjusted for each driver's needs. This maintains the Caterham's trademark throttle steer character, while users will remain able to fine tune preload to suit their lift-off behavior tastes.

Furthermore on the driveline topic, we have been literally "flexing the muscles" of the engine by introducing driveline elasticity - with multiple moving parts between the engine and driven wheels (each with its own finite stiffness) the forces applied on these parts can be immense, as gearboxes multiply engine torque - one can often hear these dynamics at play on real onboard videos as engine noise and transmission whine oscillating as the whole driveline acts like a giant spring under changing loads.

We have revised stiffnesses and driveshaft weights in multiple classes, and in multiple points in their drivelines. This creates an immersive and organic effect that fully depends on what is going on in the physical simulation. If you stomp on the throttle in 1st gear, you will hear revs jump up as the driveline tenses up. Lift suddenly, and the driveline releases its tension audibly. Driving over bumps the engine and transmission noises will oscillate smoother than before as the connection between tires, gearbox and engine isn’t as direct.

This isn’t purely for immersion purposes either, as a slight delay in response between driven wheels and engine can have subtle effects on handling - it means for example that tire slip and engine RPM aren’t the only buffers for sudden forces, which can also dampen some sharp jolts in bumpy braking zones.

In the video below comparing a lap with the Mercedes AMG GT3 around Nürburgring in V1.2.5.1 (left) vs the current AMS2 Beta (right) overlayed with wheel speed telemetry, you can see and hear the subtle but noticeable results of the developments described above:


All of these substantial physics developments along with some adjustments in setup options have also led to a big revision of default setups on all cars - so further good news is default setups being as reasonably well adjusted as they can possibly be as universal baselines for all tracks and controller types.

It does also mean however it will be critical to reset all your setups one more time upon deployment of the next update - failure to do could result in some very odd setups that will most definitely spoil the cars´ handling.

A small price to pay hopefully for what is all around a really big step in the AMS2 driving experience - while physics development remains always an ongoing process for anyone serious about simulation, in V1.3 the physics will have reached a level of maturity that we are confident represents our very best work in this area to date.

Force Feedback Developments in AMS2 V1.3

AMS2 V1.3 will also introduce developments in the game Force Feedback, with the addition of a new "Default+" profile, parallel to the existing "Default".

FFB can be a somewhat subjective matter - while generally steering FFB in-game should resemble certain traits from real world vehicles - self-centering steering wheel, resistance buildup with more steering angle & ramp up of forces with tire load - in race sims that is somewhat restrictive and often leaves us missing the actual feedback we get in our bodies on a real car through its lateral and longitudinal acceleration. Through FFB one hopes to convey some of that mixed in with the usual steering forces, and the way to do that is where things get subjective.

With the new "Default+" profile we have what we believe to be a good compromise, adding further useful information to what you get on the Default profile.

Aside from additional info provided in Default+ , we also did a lot of work on damping, which is inherent to any steering system and something we strongly advise to be used to some degree as it now doesn´t take anything away from the feedback, instead works in sync with the vehicle you drive - it depends not just on steering velocity, but vehicle velocity, lateral acceleration, tires slip, oversteer. All of that is taken into account on damping, so it is usable and helpful instead of simply providing viscous-like resistance to wheel turning.

While the Default+ is, given FFB´s subjectvity to taste the usage of custom FFB profiles will remain an option, with some interesting and popular work being developed by Karsten Hvidberg and company you may also want to check out.

We had in fact planned to add one of these profiles as a third default option in the game, however we found out that the memory load from FFB system is raised considerably by its presence if there is another profile present in the "custom" slot, leading to glitches.

We do encourage our users who may still be looking for something beyond what our default profiles are offering to give these a try checking out the Automobilista 2 Custom Force Feedback - Overview & Recommendations thread.

AI Development in AMS2 V1.3

AMS2 V1.3 will bring yet another big step for the AI, with an extensive calibration pass to not only match recent player physics development, but also solving several track and car specific performance discrepancies from the current release.

Driver personalities have been extended with some initial parameters defining an AI driver´s ability in managing tire wear, racing in wet weather & cooperating with blue flags.

Furthermore, V1.3 will introduce the option to mod AI driver names, livery assignments & personalities - you can read more about this new feature on this topic moved from the beta subforum for those looking to get an early understanding of how to go about it.

Multiplayer Rating System Hitting Public Beta in V1.3

Last but not least in our big list of V1.3 features is the introduction of the driver profile page alongside the long-awaited Multiplayer Rating System - albeit in Beta stage in this initial release.

The system is heavily based on the legacy system featured in Project Cars 2 with several adjustments - more details about it to be shared in a dedicated thread shortly before release.

We are also working with third party Multiplayer services to best integrate our system with theirs, which should hopefully see the arrival or organized scheduled races in AMS2 in the not-so distant future.

Furthermore, we have also been collecting some valuable feedback from the community for further Multiplayer development, some of which we are pushing to deliver as we progress through the public beta of the MRS - not everything will arrive in a matter of weeks, but we do hope to be fulfilling at least some common requests in the near future.

Racin´ USA Pt2 Arriving Soon!

As previously announced, the second part of the Racin´ USA Expansion Pack is due to be released shortly after V1.3 and before the end of this month.

This time, we will explore what many consider to be the golden years of American single seater racing, as Racin´ USA Pt2 will feature a number of Reynards, Swifts and Lola Indycars & Champ Cars from the 1990s, along with three iconic road courses.

The cars will make up what we will call the "Formula USA" class in the game, in three generations - Gen1 will feature models from the 1995 Indycar season (the last before the series infamously split), Gen2 will have models from the 1998 season when Alex Zanardi reigned supreme, with Gen3 featuring models from 2000 - the performance peak of the Champcar era, enabling historical feats such as Gil de Ferran´s closed course record average speed.

The 3 tracks to feature in the pack will be Watkins Glen (which even though was not raced by these cars during the 1990s, is still one the greatest road courses in the USA fully warranting its place on the pack); the unique Cleveland temporary road course, set on the Burke Lake Front Airport with a fast, flowing and very bumpy layout serving as stage for some memorable wheel-to-wheel battles; and the third one remaining under wraps for a few more days as we finalize some licensing requirements.

Racin´ USA Pt2 itself will be a slightly staggered release - the Gen2 cars along with Cleveland & Watkins Glen will be released at the end of this month, with the remaining models and the third track arriving just before our Christmas wrap-up; there will be further additions to this pack later on in 2022, as the arrival of Racin´ USA Pt3 will introduce oval tracks to Automobilista 2, which will see all Formula USA models in Pt2 receiving their oval spec variants.

While Pt3 of Racin´ USA will take a bit longer than originally planned into 2022, the delay will see more tracks being added to the package than originally planned - at no extra expense for those who already bought the full Racin´ USA Expansion Pack!

Price for Racin´ USA Pt2 will be the same as Pt1 in your local currency.

New Manufacturers Joining the Party!

We are happy to confirm we´re in the final stages of licensing arrangements with Nissan, which should see several models from the brand coming to Automobilista 2 if not already on v1.3, very soon after.

There are at least two more major manufacturer deals we are looking to wrap before the end of the year, all of which leading to various existing classes in the game being expanded with new competitors over the course of 2022 - watch this space!

This covers the main topics we had to bring you on this Dev Update, even if not quite all we have in store for the remainder of the year - we will cover these remaining goodies in our final Dev Update of the year early on December, by which time you will all hopefully already be enjoying AMS2 V1.3 & Racin´ USA Pt2!

Are you excited for this update? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Automobilista 2 001.jpgAutomobilista 2 002.jpgAutomobilista 2 003.jpgAutomobilista 2 005.jpg
About author
Mike Smith
I have been obsessed with sim racing and racing games since the 1980's. My first taste of live auto racing was in 1988, and I couldn't get enough ever since. Lead writer for RaceDepartment, and owner of SimRacing604 and its YouTube channel. Favourite sims include Assetto Corsa Competizione, Assetto Corsa, rFactor 2, Automobilista 2, DiRT Rally 2 - On Twitter as @simracing604

Comments

I will never understand why grown men need to go into every post about a sim that's not their favorite and **** on it.

What is wrong with this community? This honestly feels like the PS2 vs Xbox wars of twenty years ago... when most people involved were 13 years old.

I check out the comments every once in a while just to see how many stupid posts I can read without laughing and closing the browser.

AMS2 posts are always the worst. The ignorance and blind hate it gets is baffling.

Renato Simioni just posted on the Reiza forums:

I don’t know why people keep making that assumption, as stated before we already used all track assets we had from SMS, and in any case having them was not the main reason we chose these tracks but rather the fact they are great tracks. The third track happens to feature in PCars2 and also many other sims as it’s a great track, but our version is modelled from scratch as is 90% of our content. If you want to pay tribute to our hard working, super talented track team please avoid suggesting their work is someone else’s unless it’s one of the few exceptions
:)

Of course, haters will continue spewing misinformation on every post about AMS2...
 
You also don't *need* the carcass to deform separately from the tread; you can produce all of the slip and flex behavior accurately with just the one contact point on the tread. I know people who have coded a "proper" flex model with all of the independent axis and it just doesn't make a real difference even in cars where you should be able to see it the easiest. You'd never even notice it on any tintop car.
Laughable... Are you talking voodoo or science? If you want proper deflection information you need to build a proper physical model, run the FEM and obtain your elasticity matrixes for many points (or nodes) opening the way for many more points of contact and higher deflection values being accounted for in a proper way that simplified equations just can't do. On top of this you get accurate results for a number of different other parameters making the matrixes effectively and correctly multidimensional in terms of variable, thing that is impossible to do with simplified equations.
Then there are a bazillion shortcuts to the above that are less accurate and add simplifications to reduce complexity and the amount of calculations but they are not at the same level of accuracy. Especially so when significant carcass deformation is needed to be accounted for as is in the case of a racing tire.
We get that you like the freedom of a single point of contact with Pacejika because you can bake in what you like, but that doesn't make it accurate.
 
Disclosure - I don't have AMS 2 yet, but the recent updates have got me interested and watching Reiza's developments.

I suspect the 3rd track is probably Road America, and I love RA - but it's yet another track that was also in PCars 2. I accept that Reiza remakes the tracks and they're not "ports", but it does feel like you can mostly predict what's coming (what was in PC2 that isn't in AMS2 yet?) Cleveland of course is an unexpected and new one, and I applaud that. As much as I like Road America, I'd like to see Mid-Ohio. Does any sim in the last 20 years besides iRacing have Mid-Ohio (mods excluded)? It's appropriate for everything from entry level all the way up to Indy Cars, including prototypes and GT classes (admittedly so is Road America).

I won't complain if it's Road America, it's a great track. But, it would be cool if there are more tracks added that we don't see over and over again in other sims. OTOH I understand they need to attract buyers with popular content, so I get it. And props for VIR already being in-game, that one is an awesome drive.
 
Laughable... Are you talking voodoo or science? If you want proper deflection information you need to build a proper physical model, run the FEM and obtain your elasticity matrixes for many points (or nodes) opening the way for many more points of contact and higher deflection values being accounted for in a proper way that simplified equations just can't do. On top of this you get accurate results for a number of different other parameters making the matrixes effectively and correctly multidimensional in terms of variable, thing that is impossible to do with simplified equations.
Then there are a bazillion shortcuts to the above that are less accurate and add simplifications to reduce complexity and the amount of calculations but they are not at the same level of accuracy. Especially so when significant carcass deformation is needed to be accounted for as is in the case of a racing tire.
We get that you like the freedom of a single point of contact with Pacejika because you can bake in what you like, but that doesn't make it accurate.
I just said that a more complicated implementation barely differs in practical accuracy from a very simplified one. This also has to run in realtime on reasonable PC setups, so you're kind of missing the point.

Obviously if you're going to do a simulation as a manufacturer, you will go as complex as you can for maximal output accuracy. But for something like a driver-in-the-loop sim for driver training purposes it won't matter that much if your slip ends up being 0.5% theoretically less accurate or not.

It's better to have a model where you can get it to that practical 95% to begin with using the generally limited input data available. If you'd ever made a real-time simulation model for a car you'd know this.
 
I just said that a more complicated implementation barely differs in practical accuracy from a very simplified one. This also has to run in realtime on reasonable PC setups, so you're kind of missing the point.

Obviously if you're going to do a simulation as a manufacturer, you will go as complex as you can for maximal output accuracy. But for something like a driver-in-the-loop sim for driver training purposes it won't matter that much if your slip ends up being 0.5% theoretically less accurate or not.

It's better to have a model where you can get it to that practical 95% to begin with using the generally limited input data available. If you'd ever made a real-time simulation model for a car you'd know this.
The problem is that 5% that's missing is a lot of difference when you are not looking at defining the general performance of a tire and instead your mission is to give an organic feeling to a steering wheel. Race engineers and even designers won't need a great deal of predictivity capacity because they end up testing things (especially race engineers) so they build the knowledge they need through extensive real life testing and data acquisition which they do not have to put in a real time use to give tactile feeling.
Simulators instead need that tactile organic feeling and need to be predictive because that is what they do.
That is why the small details and nuances are far more important there especially as developers have close to nil access to real life data and even when they have those, their data are global (means global values for the whole tire), not local (how every single element of tire behaves). In other words it is pretty much useless to know what the overall amount of self aligning torque is when you do not have info on what the tire deflections in all directions are, since you anyway are going to make things up with respect to their relation because you are not using a physical model.
Simulators are there for us to be entertained, we should not get drawn into the marketing bubble of certain developers telling you that what they have is accurate to the electron paths and instead they are serving you a highly simplified highly invented (through a great deal of craftmanship) set of equations.
 
Last edited:
Cleveland may be a strange and surprising choice for many, but it shows that Reiza knows their CART fanbase. That track has a huge following as a place of nostalgic memory and racing perfection, and it comes up often in CART forums at the top of people's wish lists for Indycar to go back to.
 
The problem is that 5% that's missing is a lot of difference when you are not looking at defining the general performance of a tire and instead your mission is to give an organic feeling to a steering wheel. Race engineers and even designers won't need a great deal of predictivity capacity because they end up testing things (especially race engineers) so they build the knowledge they need through extensive real life testing and data acquisition which they do not have to put in a real time use to give tactile feeling.
Simulators instead need that tactile organic feeling and need to be predictive because that is what they do.
That is why the small details and nuances are far more important there especially as developers have close to nil access to real life data and even when they have those, their data are global (means global values for the whole tire), not local (how every single element of tire behaves). In other words it is pretty much useless to know what the overall amount of self aligning torque is when you do not have info on what the tire deflections in all directions are, since you anyway are going to make things up with respect to their relation because you are not using a physical model.
Simulators are there for us to be entertained, we should not get drawn into the marketing bubble of certain developers telling you that what they have is accurate to the electron paths and instead they are serving you a highly simplified highly invented (through a great deal of craftmanship) set of equations.
You're being real confusing right now. One one hand you're saying some true things and talking about things which are not commonly known, but on the other hand half of what you say is just nonsense and doesn't make sense. Are you a physics modder, engineering student, or what?

Like why is it useless to know your overall SAT if the other tire deflections are *isolated* from the SAT and are already expressed relatively accurately? Of course it's useful to know your overall SAT. You need it to be able to represent it. In the same way you need your cornering stiffness or longitudinal peak to be known so you can represent them.

In addition I just told you earlier that a model with *every* unique independent deflection modeled accurately barely at all differs from a more simplified one in terms of accuracy.

I'm gonna ignore all that stuff about tactile feel and whatever. I don't know about you, but I care a whole lot more about the tire correlating accurately than it meeting some kind of arbitrary "feels good to me" criteria.
 
Renato Simioni just posted on the Reiza forums:

"The third track happens to feature in PCars2 and also many other sims as it’s a great track, but our version is modelled from scratch"

I believe Renato, he has no reason to lie.

What would help would be if the track did not look so similar, I mean almost identical.
Yes, the road mesh feels different, no doubt.
But how about elevation and camber, should they also be very different if scratch made?
Or are the PCars2 tracks perfect on that aspect and therefore the AMS2 tracks cannot be different?

Having Sebring, a much thought after US track, instead of Watkins Glen, would have been the same scratch made efforts and would have been a better option, as opposed to yet an other PCars2 track clone.

Just saying.
 
Guuuuuys.
Can we please stop waving d***s around and saying "My sim is better than your sim because of jaddajaddajadda"? Please?

AC is great and it's unbelievable what modders have done with it. I'm grateful for that.
On the other hand there is AMS2 and it's exciting to see what it has become so far. Personally I think this new update is one of the best yet in terms of car feeling (beta tester here). However: each to their own. Start AMS2, get in a car and drive some laps. My recommendation: Caterham @ Cadwell.
Exactly! AC and AMS2 are both 'VR Friendly' sims. AC fanboys and AMS2 fanboys should not be enemies. Instead we should join together, then we can CRUSH the real enemy.. the flat-screeners.
 
Having Sebring, a much thought after US track, instead of Watkins Glen, would have been the same scratch made efforts and would have been a better option, as opposed to yet an other PCars2 track clone.

Just saying.
i would also prefer Sebring instead of Watkins, but they said licensing Sebring is so, so expensive.
 
Exactly! AC and AMS2 are both 'VR Friendly' sims. AC fanboys and AMS2 fanboys should not be enemies. Instead we should join together, then we can CRUSH the real enemy.. the flat-screeners.

They can both look FANTASTIC in VR. I actually prefer AC's cleaner look with my settings because the shadows look way better. The shadows in AMS2 can get very ugly for some reason. Night driving is a clear win for AC too.

That said AMS2 does look amazing and more realistic in a lot of scenarios. They're neck and neck in this department IMO and better than anything else out there.

iRacing does look VERY clean and it's very immersive, but a bit outdated. rF2 can look very good in VR too. The only sim I don't drive anymore for lackluster VR performance is ACC, and I could never really dial in R3E either.
 
They can both look FANTASTIC in VR. I actually prefer AC's cleaner look with my settings because the shadows look way better. The shadows in AMS2 can get very ugly for some reason. Night driving is a clear win for AC too.

That said AMS2 does look amazing and more realistic in a lot of scenarios. They're neck and neck in this department IMO and better than anything else out there.

iRacing does look VERY clean and it's very immersive, but a bit outdated. rF2 can look very good in VR too. The only sim I don't drive anymore for lackluster VR performance is ACC, and I could never really dial in R3E either.
It's a shame about the ACC VR. Other than that it's such an awesome racing sim. For me, the compromise in ACC between looking good and framerates is poor. I wonder will DLSS help in this regard?
 
Disclosure - I don't have AMS 2 yet, but the recent updates have got me interested and watching Reiza's developments.

I suspect the 3rd track is probably Road America, and I love RA - but it's yet another track that was also in PCars 2. I accept that Reiza remakes the tracks and they're not "ports", but it does feel like you can mostly predict what's coming (what was in PC2 that isn't in AMS2 yet?) Cleveland of course is an unexpected and new one, and I applaud that. As much as I like Road America, I'd like to see Mid-Ohio. Does any sim in the last 20 years besides iRacing have Mid-Ohio (mods excluded)? It's appropriate for everything from entry level all the way up to Indy Cars, including prototypes and GT classes (admittedly so is Road America).

I won't complain if it's Road America, it's a great track. But, it would be cool if there are more tracks added that we don't see over and over again in other sims. OTOH I understand they need to attract buyers with popular content, so I get it. And props for VIR already being in-game, that one is an awesome drive.
It all comes down to $$ and interest from the track. I would guess that Reiza is open to adding almost any major track, but only certain tracks are open to licensing and/or price the licensing for a reasonable amount. Given that Mid-Ohio only appears in IRacing, it is probably a sign they are not easy to strike a deal with.
 
D
that thread really feels like AC around 2018.
 
Without mod support and mod tracks, all those cars are nice, but driving them on three realistic circuits each gets old rather quickly. And I am not even talking about the lack of compete grids to race against.
 
The physics updates sound amazing, that should go without saying - sounds like some of the drivetrain improvements will make the subtle differences to behaviour (and sound) that Raceroom introduced there and added a tonne of immersion that I never realised I'd been missing.

Exciting that they're tracking down issues that may have affected the engine in the past too, which I guess could assuage some people's "it's like project cars 2" vibe (although I fear a lot of people just don't want to like it or give it a chance).

Content-wise, I'm sort of assuming that Road America is the remaining circuit for Pt2, would be very surprised if it wasn't. Glad to see Watkins Glen make it in, CART or not. I will ask one more time, but without expectation, if there are any historic versions of these circuits planned? 70s or 80s Watkins Glen would be near top of my list. Will be amazing to see an 'official' version of Cleveland though, and to get to race multiple car types on it - Group C or GT1 cars here will be super interesting.

Whilst I loved CART (even got to see a race in Chicago in 2000), the single seater content isn't my go-to, but I'm super impressed that they have the licenced manufacturers (especially tracking down the owners of Swift and Reynard IP!) and hopefully the chassis' each have some individual quirks.

And then the Nissans; that's a fantastic bit of news that the GT1 and Group C classes will both expand soon, two excellent car choices there. I'm assuming from the last diary that Aston Martin are one of those being finalised, whilst fingers crossed Ford may be another (with some vintage class expansions). Really appreciate that they're focusing on expanding existing classes.

I will admit that I'm a bit disappointed that oval content will be the focus of Part 3 of the USA pack, not because I've anything against oval racing, but just the huge amount of resources that will need to go into it for what will likely 'only' be 4-5 tracks max. Also, remains to be seen if there'll be a way to have a championship with road versions of cars for road tracks and ovals for oval tracks.

I'm really looking forward to AI customisation options, but would love to know if manageable, multiclass grids are in the future roadmap. If we have no way of picking which of those drivers shows up it loses a little bit of its impact (though don't get me wrong, still grateful and consider this a HUGE step in the right direction).

Thanks all at Reiza!
 
  • Like
Reactions: F_B

Latest News

Article information

Author
Mike Smith
Article read time
2 min read
Views
31,737
Comments
169
Last update

What does easier access mean to you?

  • Free access

    Votes: 52 69.3%
  • Better structured events

    Votes: 20 26.7%
  • Better structured forum

    Votes: 17 22.7%
  • Standard game content

    Votes: 16 21.3%
  • No 3pa registration pages

    Votes: 17 22.7%
  • To casual

    Votes: 7 9.3%
  • Other, please post

    Votes: 4 5.3%
Back
Top