BMW M4 GT3 Coming to rFactor 2

Kyuubeey said:

Yeah, it's even so good that nobody serious uses it.

Click to expand...

Theres rFPro that I think has the same tire model. You need to know what you are doing though and probably in rFPro you have people who can code into it more parameters if needed be to achieve what they need. In S397 land there aren't professionals for that I'm afraid.

mod-edit: removed from the discussion

That's awesome!

BloodSinking said:

Theres rFPro that I think has the same tire model. You need to know what you are doing though and probably in rFPro you have people who can code into it more parameters if needed be to achieve what they need. In S397 land there aren't professionals for that I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

rFPro is rF1, although IIRC some time ago they did migrate some of the visual rendering over from rF2, the Toyota one looks a bit different last I saw it. It has the rF1 tire model. You don't need to buy rFPro or ACPro to use them for your racing team. Most teams use the consumer versions.

The only use for rFPro/ACPro is for manufacturers like Toyota or Ferrari to hook their own custom high sample rate physics in without having to spend a lot of money coding the rest of the engine. Pretty much no actual racing teams do that apart from a few in the higher tier Formula series. It's really expensive and you don't necessarily get better results unless you put in a lot of effort.

Another GT3 car.

Gevatter said:

Yes overpriced compared to anything but iRacing. 9 EUR for one track or 5EUR for one car is a bad joke. Since you like talking about ACC so much, the ICGTC DLC for ACC is 15EUR for four tracks, all laser scanned, all licenced. The GT4 pack is 20EUR for 11 cars. That's basically half the price of rF2 tracks and cars. AC Dream Pack 1 cost 15EUR for 10 cars and one Nordschleife. In rF2 land that would be 40-45 EUR probably? Since the cars go for 3 EUR in a pack of five? Oh and the BMW M4 GT3 was added as free content in ACC.

And yes, sales also happen for DLC of other games, nothing special here.

It shows that you cannot answer any of my concerns I have with rF2 when you're only capable of ranting about other games in your reply instead of addressing anything. I never mentioned ACC in my post, so no idea why you're jumping on that.

Click to expand...

"All this time, the other sims and devs caught up and sometimes even surpassed rF2. Apart from R3E, all sims now have dynamic weather and day/night transitions. Tire models have become more sophisicated on other sims, and other devs somehow manage to work out the quirks of game engines foreign to them much faster than S397 ever did."
Hello? I only see ONE sim with a tyre model that has more advanced characteristics (in some aspects) and that sim is ACC.
You don't need to mention something expressly for anyone to understand what you were referring to...
And I don't question that Kunos' DLC is cheap, but that does not make rF2's expensive.

Kyuubeey said:

Stop talking about things you have no clue about whatsoever. ACC tire model isn't "tuned" for anything specific, it's effectively AC's tire model which is already versatile enough, hence most professional applications use it. ACC just added some minor things. Nobody is using rF2 tire model for a reason; it's not made with correlation in mind and due to the nature of the parameter generation with the "physical" method, it struggles with basic things.

Aero just doesn't work that way, what can I say. It's just force at a location. There is no "tuning of the model" for different series or cars or whatever.

FFB in AC/ACC is rack-end forces. It doesn't rely on anything canned. It is true due to the tire model being semi-empiric that the tire flexes are "baked in", but all this means is that in some situations the SAT will be slightly off. In most there is no discrepancy. It has been tried with AC, by coding a tire model that has individual flexes.

Click to expand...

Well, I believe you make no sense... semi-empiric + baked-in seem quite indicting on how simplified AC/ACC tyre model is.
I will beat you to death in a discussion, but even Aris has recognised that they made choices, focusing on pressure and temperatures, not on the physical simulation of the tyre, being that only now they have increased a bit the parameters on that front (and you can feel an improvement).

ACC's FFB without dynamic damping and road effects (canned effects, non-physically simulated), feels - to me - numb and dull.
But to each its own. It's a fine sim, which I have spent hundreds of hours on, but which I don't drive right now.

Kyuubeey said:

ACC tire model isn't "tuned" for anything specific, it's effectively AC's tire model which is already versatile enough, hence most professional applications use it.

Click to expand...

Any example of these "professional applications"?

The arrogance of much of the fan community made me abandon Rf2. They just don't accept that they have problems...

v4v474 said:

Well, I believe you make no sense... semi-empiric + baked-in seem quite indicting on how simplified AC/ACC tyre model is.
I will beat you to death in a discussion, but even Aris has recognised that they made choices, focusing on pressure and temperatures, not on the physical simulation of the tyre, being that only now they have increased a bit the parameters on that front (and you can feel an improvement).

ACC's FFB without dynamic damping and road effects (canned effects, non-physically simulated), feels - to me - numb and dull.
But to each its own. It's a fine sim, which I have spent hundreds of hours on, but which I don't drive right now.

Click to expand...

I make no sense because you have no clue what you're talking about.

All driver-in-the-loop tire models are "simplified", nothing comprehensive runs in real-time. There are just some advantages to using a flexible carcass model over a brush model, or using a brush model with more features over a brush model with less, or even using semi-empiric models over a model that's more towards fully empiric like Pacejka. Or to be more precise, there are some advantages that come with downsides as well. People greatly exaggerate the advantages and are not aware of the downsides.

rF2 is essentially just a brush-model-parameter-generator last I checked, there is nothing groundbreaking or super complex about the kinetic* part.

The one real benefit rF2 does have over AC is that it uses a (more physically based)* finite element heating model compared to a (more)* empiric one IIRC, which in theory should allow some good features to be implemented with less volatility risk. Although I have seen only really bad implementations for heat in rF2 so I don't personally know where the limits are.

The main advantage to "physical based" stuff is that you, in theory, cannot do things which are not physically consistent. The downside is that you're very limited as a designer because things are interconnected, and unfortunately the models can't really make accurate tires right now; or at least it is incredibly hard to due to being so volatile. Just about only thing FEA does well is stuff like springrate compared to tire load; which is incredibly much so not important.

*Kinetic, not kinematic
*Both FE to be precise, AC's is just very loose with the laws of thermodynamics

v4v474 said:

Hello? I only see ONE sim with a tyre model that has more advanced characteristics (in some aspects) and that sim is ACC.

Click to expand...

Hello! You'll need to look harder then.

Kyuubeey said:

I make no sense because you have no clue what you're talking about.

All driver-in-the-loop tire models are "simplified", nothing comprehensive runs in real-time. There are just some advantages to using a flexible carcass model over a brush model, or using a brush model with more features over a brush model with less, or even using semi-empiric models over a model that's more towards fully empiric like Pacejka. Or to be more precise, there are some advantages that come with downsides as well. People greatly exaggerate the advantages and are not aware of the downsides.

rF2 is essentially just a brush-model-parameter-generator last I checked, there is nothing groundbreaking or super complex about the kinematic part.

The one real benefit rF2 does have over AC is that it uses a finite element heating model compared to an empiric one IIRC, which in theory should allow some good features to be implemented with less volatility risk. Although I have seen only really bad implementations for heat in rF2 so I don't personally know where the limits are.

The main advantage to "physical based" stuff is that you, in theory, cannot do things which are not physically consistent. The downside is that you're very limited as a designer because things are interconnected, and unfortunately the models can't really make accurate tires right now; or at least it is incredibly hard to due to being so volatile. Just about only thing FEA does well is stuff like springrate compared to tire load; which is incredibly much so not important.

Click to expand...

Now that is talking. VaVa is such a shill you wouldn't believe it. He even forgets AMS2 and iRacing have the physical model too... Nah, rF2 is the only groundbreaking sim in the market, LMAO.

Kyuubeey said:

rFPro is rF1, although IIRC some time ago they did migrate some of the visual rendering over from rF2, the Toyota one looks a bit different last I saw it. It has the rF1 tire model. You don't need to buy rFPro or ACPro to use them for your racing team. Most teams use the consumer versions.

The only use for rFPro/ACPro is for manufacturers like Toyota or Ferrari to hook their own custom high sample rate physics in without having to spend a lot of money coding the rest of the engine. Pretty much no actual racing teams do that apart from a few in the higher tier Formula series. It's really expensive and you don't necessarily get better results unless you put in a lot of effort.

Click to expand...

Are you sure rFPro is rF1 tire model? Not what I've seen at all along the years. I doubt they wouldn't take advantage of the physical model and maybe they can also modify and code in much more with the help of the professional team behind it.

People don't understand that to a point an empiric model of the sort of ACC or AC if complete enough can definetly mimic tires physically better then physical model. It's just they are still being developed and we didn't yet see the full development and it might not go there because semi-physical tire model is probably the way.

But you seem to know much more then me about all that. Nice read man.

BTW, this guys keep calling iRacing tire model broken when they've introduced changes to it, but have the huge problem of calling out the RF2 DLC cars with huge issues that make rF2 some of the most arcade like simulation there is - in those specific cars.

BloodSinking said:

Are you sure rFPro is rF1 tire model? Not what I've seen at all along the years. I doubt they wouldn't take advantage of the physical model and maybe they can also modify and code in much more with the help of the professional team behind it.

People don't understand that to a point an empiric model of the sort of ACC or AC if complete enough can definetly mimic tires physically better then physical model. It's just they are still being developed and we didn't yet see the full development and it might not go there because semi-physical tire model is probably the way.

But you seem to know much more then me about all that. Nice read man.

Click to expand...

The only reason you'd use a physical model to generate parameters for a circuit racing car sim is if you don't have any data at all and you just want some kind of tire. If you have some actual data to correlate to, you will want to use a semi-empiric model because the results are just about always better and easier to obtain.

Clients who buy rF/ACPro buy it to hook their own models in, I don't think anyone really cares about what they come with.

Folks... to like one thing, you don't have to disparage another. And if you don't like something, screaming it louder to belittle people who do like it is not going to miraculously convince them to not like it. And you don't need to justify what you enjoy and have fun with due to it being more "realistic" or "correlated with real data" or having a more "sophisticated" tire model.

And if you truly have so little respect for a person or group as much as some as you seem towards rF2, its developers, or its "fanboys", then do yourself a favour and just forget about it and move on. No need to dwell in negativity: it's unhealthy. Focus on something else more positive. And go enjoy yourself in whatever you enjoy! That's what sim racing should be all about, yeah?

For developers, car modders, and real-world racing teams, I don't doubt that more empirical tire models are easier to work with and get closer-to-life behaviour. As a highly experienced and thoughtful modder, Kyuubeey definitely knows his stuff! But despite its different approach, it's clear that rF2 can yield cars that feel very fun, "alive", and IMO don't feel totally implausible.

It's all subjective at the end of the day, and what matters is: with what games (and yes, at the end of the day, these are games) what do you have fun driving in? As a wise person once said: "there's no accounting for taste". And in the end, all sim games are highly incomplete, approximate, and impressionistic virtual representations of real-world car handling and feeling of driving. So you should feel free to do what you enjoy.

EDIT: Please forgive any awkward or incorrect wordings around tire models and so on. I have no expertise in the area, and am only using language I've picked up by osmosis. Hopefully I get my point across regardless.

MJQT said:

But despite its different approach, it's clear that rF2 can yield cars that feel very fun, "alive", and IMO don't feel totally implausible.

Click to expand...

Well okay, to be totally fair on rF2; and lately AMS2, the results are not necessarily bad in every way for every tire.

Arguably old ISImotor, with its big market share in serious simulators, has more glaring issues in the modeling than rF2 or AMS2, although I'm not eager to talk in detail before I can figure out what exactly is off and see if a fix can be made. I brainstormed and tested it a bit with Niels but nothing conclusive yet.

I used to be a massive ISImotor fan too, having started with GTR2 and rF1. But I still have to admit that it's better to have some minor issues everywhere than a major glaring one in something basic.

Good Lord this thread is hard to read. Mike posts a thread about how the BMW M4 GT3 is coming to rFactor 2, and it turns into a flame war of obnoxious people who think they know everything, and that everyone should share their opinion. Some of you should go back and reread your numerous posts, where you flame others for their opinions, and proclaim how much more you know than everyone else, and realize how off putting you are. Its not that hard, if you like AC then play AC, and leave those who like rFactor 2 to enjoy it.

Kyuubeey said:

Well okay, to be totally fair on rF2; and lately AMS2, the results are not necessarily bad in every way for every tire.

Arguably old ISImotor, with its big market share in serious simulators, has more glaring issues in the modeling than rF2 or AMS2, although I'm not eager to talk in detail before I can figure out what exactly is off and see if a fix can be made. I brainstormed and tested it a bit with Niels but nothing conclusive yet.

I used to be a massive ISImotor fan too, having started with GTR2 and rF1. But I still have to admit that it's better to have some minor issues everywhere than a major glaring one in something basic.

Click to expand...

As a side note, Kyuubeey - I always look forward to reading your comments, because I know that a) they're coming from lots of experience; b) you're thoughtful and nuanced in what you say; and c) you know wayyy more about the math and coding of car handling and tire behaviour than I do. And this comment is no exception! Some people who respond to your comments seem to miss the nuance and careful wording in what you say, and take things as personal attacks or some weird sh*t, which is too bad.

Also, I am very interested to hear over time what the results are of your testing with regard to rF1/AMS/GTR2 ISImotor issues! (and rF2, if you're testing that, but I don't think you are) Hopefully you share some of your and Niels' discoveries once you're ready. Always exciting to me to learn more about the internals of these games and how car handling and so on can be improved.

Kyuubeey said:

The only reason you'd use a physical model to generate parameters for a circuit racing car sim is if you don't have any data at all and you just want some kind of tire. If you have some actual data to correlate to, you will want to use a semi-empiric model because the results are just about always better and easier to obtain.

Click to expand...

This is nonsense. It's the other way around.
rF2's TGM Tire Tool is effectively a FEA program, it is intensive to run, typing hypothetical into the program is a battle lost in the beginning. You want data of the tire to get good results. Problem is, getting tire data is almost impossible. Either you test the tire (expensive) or you get it from the manufacturer (they won't give you all of the data)

Empirical models are better at matching any data you have, even if little. Just watch what Niels Heusinkveld does. Make an educated guess, set your parameters, see the results, compare, go back to step one.