BMW M4 GT3 Coming to rFactor 2

BMW M4 GT3 for rFactor 2 01.jpg
Studio 397 has confirmed yet another new piece of content coming to rFactor 2, the BMW M4 GT3.

The announcements just keep coming for rFactor 2. We’ve already told you about three pieces of content scheduled to be released into the sim next week as DLC: Daytona International Speedway, the Ligier JS P320 LMP3 car, and the new INDYCAR IR-18. And now we know there will be one more piece of content, the BMW M4 GT3.

BMW’s latest entry into the GT3 class, the M4 GT3, is powered by BMW’s M TwinPower Turbo inline 6-cylinder engine, capable of 590 horsepower. It offers slightly more power, improved aerodynamics, and better drivability than its predecessor, the M6 GT3.

The M4 GT3 joins a growing roster of GT3’s on offer in rFactor 2, including cars from Aston Martin, Audi, Bentley, Callaway, McLaren, Mercedes, Porsche, Radical and Ferrari. Sim racing’s most popular racing class is well represented in rF2, and the growing selection of official tracks complement these cars well.

RFactor 2 isn’t the first sim to have the M4 GT3 as official content, as iRacing and Assetto Corsa Competizione already welcomed the car to their respective content offerings. Despite mixed opinions on the looks of the M4 GT3, the car remains well used in both of those sims.

With so much high-profile content coming to rFactor 2, which do you want to drive first? Let us know in the comments below.
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: DenBv, Paul_V, Durge Driven and 6 others
About author
Mike Smith
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

More in rFactor 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Comments

Kyuubeey
MJQT said:
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.
Click to expand...
Honestly I think my wording is not that great so I can excuse people who get angry. Sometimes I even outright lie, although that's usually just due to my stupidity and I correct it after; not deliberately.

I don't really care who likes what sim, but it's annoying when people with clearly no experience or insight apart from watching YouTube videos or reading forums try to say how things are in an extremely niche industry, sometimes replying to professionals working in said industry and arguing with them. Bystanders will look at that and just assume that the one guy who ten people are disagreeing with must be wrong; if he was right, everyone would not disagree with him. People, including me not that long ago to be honest, make big assumptions about things and end up with what "seems true" and rarely what is.

The tl;dr is that everything appears correct on telemetry, but cars simply do not behave correctly in terms of yaw even with an incredibly simple car.
 
Kyuubeey
NobodyKnowsReally said:
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.
Click to expand...
You can begin by asking yourself if the FEA program they wrote is 100% accurate for something as complex as a pneumatic tire, even if you feed perfect data into it.
 
N
Kyuubeey said:
You can begin by asking yourself if the FEA program they wrote is 100% accurate for something as complex as a pneumatic tire, even if you feed perfect data into it.
Click to expand...
What is your point then?
My point is this: garbage in = garbage out. Doesn't matter if the tire simulation (the FEA) is right or wrong. You need all the data required and it needs to be accurate.
You can get away with less if you have an empirical model.
 
Richard Wilks
Kyuubeey said:
The tl;dr is that everything appears correct on telemetry, but cars simply do not behave correctly in terms of yaw even with an incredibly simple car.
Click to expand...
AKA you can't drive, or you can't create a car (pick one) and altough the telemetry says this in black and white, its the game engine that is wrong, not you.

Also, i love how you take a few messages exchanged, to "i brainstormed with Niels" ...
 
Richard Wilks
NobodyKnowsReally said:
What is your point then?
My point is this: garbage in = garbage out. Doesn't matter if the tire simulation (the FEA) is right or wrong. You need all the data required and it needs to be accurate.
You can get away with less if you have an empirical model.
Click to expand...
My advice, don't waste your time with him. His post history speaks for himself. He is here constantly trolling, and trying to make himself sound smart or knowledgeable, while spamming every thread that isnt about AC with snide remarks and back handed compliments. He is a nuanced troll, but still a troll.
 
Kyuubeey
Richard Wilks said:
AKA you can't drive, or you can't create a car (pick one) and altough the telemetry says this in black and white, its the game engine that is wrong, not you.

Also, i love how you take a few messages exchanged, to "i brainstormed with Niels" ...
Click to expand...
Nothing in the telemetry even indicates negative understeer coefficient, but if it makes you sleep better at night, then okay. Car still oversteers. I bet you haven't ever even tested ISImotor yourself, yet you talk.

I didn't know you have access to our private messaging channels and know how many messages we exchanged.
 
mclarenf1papa
NobodyKnowsReally said:
What is your point then?
My point is this: garbage in = garbage out. Doesn't matter if the tire simulation (the FEA) is right or wrong. You need all the data required and it needs to be accurate.
You can get away with less if you have an empirical model.
Click to expand...
Garbage in always equals garbage out, but I think Arch's point is that because the complexity of the tire's frictional interaction with the road surface is so high, even the correct data plugged into the RF2 model could give poor results. Even simple elastic FEA has errors; simulating a tire involves elastics, thermodynamics, adhesion, wildly dynamic material properties, etc. The error can grow very quickly. RF2 additionally doesn't seem to have enough inputs for its physical model (like some of the dynamics of the properties) to do all of those things correctly, so you're looking at an approximation of an approximation in the best case.

The overarching point is that it's much easier to align a semi-empirical model like e.g. AC to a real tire than a physical model. There are just many more degrees of freedom (i.e. sources of error) in a physical model, which makes the accuracy and parametrization of said model incredibly important. This is not to say you can't produce tires that behave reasonably with the RF2 model, just that for a serious use case, it will not really suffice.
 
Kyuubeey
mclarenf1papa said:
Garbage in always equals garbage out, but I think Arch's point is that because the complexity of the tire's frictional interaction with the road surface is so high, even the correct data plugged into the RF2 model could give poor results. Even simple elastic FEA has errors; simulating a tire involves elastics, thermodynamics, adhesion, wildly dynamic material properties, etc. The error can grow very quickly. RF2 additionally doesn't seem to have enough inputs for its physical model (like some of the dynamics of the properties) to do all of those things correctly, so you're looking at an approximation of an approximation in the best case.

The overarching point is that it's much easier to align a semi-empirical model like e.g. AC to a real tire than a physical model. There are just many more degrees of freedom (i.e. sources of error) in a physical model, which makes the accuracy and parametrization of said model incredibly important. This is not to say you can't produce tires that behave reasonably with the RF2 model, just that for a serious use case, it will not really suffice.
Click to expand...
Getting my popcorn out for when people start arguing with the actual simulation engineer just because he happens to not completely disagree with me.
 
MJQT
Kyuubeey said:
Honestly I think my wording is not that great so I can excuse people who get angry. Sometimes I even outright lie, although that's usually just due to my stupidity and I correct it after; not deliberately.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Maybe I've just learned to read your comments with an auto-filter that reads past the saltiness or something haha! :laugh: Anyway, what you're describing isn't as much "lying" as much as "accidentally using the wrong words" or "mis-stating", which we all do. If you are deliberately lying or bullshitting people, that's bad and I don't condone it... but I don't get that impression from your comments, personally.
Kyuubeey said:
I don't really care who likes what sim, but it's annoying when people with clearly no experience or insight apart from watching YouTube videos or reading forums try to say how things are in an extremely niche industry, sometimes replying to professionals working in said industry and arguing with them.
Click to expand...
IMO this is a very good comment. Being able to admit when you don't know about something is so important yet underappreciated in the world nowadays. And so is thinking critically with an open mind and never blindly buying into an opinion simply because it's popular and lots of people are saying something. Mind you, no one should blindly trust any single individual person and their perspective either, even if they have 'expertise' or seem to know what they're talking about. After all, even experts usually disagree at least a little about some aspects of their domain of expertise.

Wow, this has gone so far off topic, it's nuts. :whistling: Think I'm going to leave it there for this comment section.

EDIT: I didn't leave it there, cause the tone kept devolving, so I felt I needed to try to ask some questions and maybe settle things down a little.
 
Last edited:
A
When I hear blanket statements such as 'everybody uses product A' and 'nobody serious uses product B' without giving specifics, I smell bullshit.

As far as we know, Kyuubeey is a guy that started modding cars for AC few years ago.
I'm not saying he is not right, maybe he is, but damn, I find his posts obnoxious, because he acts like he knows everything, but we don't even know who he is.

Dude, at least give some credence to your blanket statements, what serious pro-teams use AC - and I mean, not use it to learn tracks, but as serious simulator. Thanks!
 
mclarenf1papa
Ami_M3 said:
When I hear blanket statements such as 'everybody uses product A' and 'nobody serious uses product B' without giving specifics, I smell bullshit.

As far as we know, Kyuubeey is a guy that started modding cars for AC few years ago.
I'm not saying he is not right, maybe he is, but damn, I find his posts obnoxious, because he acts like he knows everything, but we don't even know who he is.

Dude, at least give some credence to your blanket statements, what serious pro-teams use AC - and I mean, not use it to learn tracks, but as serious simulator. Thanks!
Click to expand...
11-win-autosport-oreca-lmp2-07-1.jpg

11-win-autosport-oreca-lmp2-07-1.jpg

1644090648930.png
 
Kyuubeey
Ami_M3 said:
When I hear blanket statements such as 'everybody uses product A' and 'nobody serious uses product B' without giving specifics, I smell bullshit.

As far as we know, Kyuubeey is a guy that started modding cars for AC few years ago.
I'm not saying he is not right, maybe he is, but damn, I find his posts obnoxious, because he acts like he knows everything, but we don't even know who he is.

Dude, at least give some credence to your blanket statements, what serious pro-teams use AC - and I mean, not use it to learn tracks, but as serious simulator. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I started modding AC in early 2014. Otherwise I have no public simulation achievements or accolades, so maybe it's good if you don't trust me.

I don't know if other people want to be named, but it appears Jackson from IER (AC in LMP2) posted some images just now.
 
T
Kyuubeey said:
I started modding AC in early 2014. Otherwise I have no public simulation achievements or accolades, so maybe it's good if you don't trust me.

I don't know if other people want to be named, but it appears Jackson from IER (AC in LMP2) posted some images just now.
Click to expand...
I am not going to start a long debate about who uses what here, but that's basicly the only example that I know off for AC. As with any sim, I am pretty sure that there are more consumers, but I find it a far stretch to say that "noone serious uses rF2". Are people like Tom Tillmann, Fernando Alonso, Sophia Flörsch or Rudy Van Buren not serious enough? There are pretty obvious reasons why I wouldn't use a product like AC if I wanted to prepare for tracks like Le Mans, Indianapolis or Monza for example compared to rF2, even if it is just driver preparation. The SlowMotion guys worked together with some of the GP3 teams and you will find certainly more examples of cooperation.

About the rest of this threat: wtf is going on? everyone is going mental. :D People calling the fanbase of a sim arrogant, because they still enjoy a product despite it's flaws. Doesn't this speak for the big strong points of the product that are able to balance it's weakpoint eventhough the product is that old? rF2 recently had it's highest peak player number reached due to the new UI release. Yep, it's not that important ... :rolleyes:

About the prices of rF2 DLC: they are certainly not cheap. Why would anyone claim that? On the other hand you get a product with the option to expand the experience with mods. Has anyone of you thought about the fact, that rF2 is the last moddable sim on the market, atleast from the main products in development? If the current trend keeps on, we will be left with the mercy of developers and publishers at one point, developers that lean towards tactics like micro transactions for skins (I know, shots fired) that force you to drive GT cars till the end of your life or who simply have a monopoly on the content front or that force bad UIs upon their users. For the people who think that Daytona is too expensive, there was a very nice free version released recently. Give that guy a donation as he got pretty unlucky with his release btw. But watching the video of the official Daytona DLC I am sure it's very high quality like the rest of the tracks and I will propably get it, because the DLCs that I acquired have been well worth their money. I think it's great, that the guys from S397 sit down and write long ass wikis for modders so that they have a guidance. In the modding scene that I grew up, there was alot less and everything was and still is trial and error.
 
Last edited:
Kyuubeey
tr1v1um said:
I am not going to start a long debate about who uses what here, but that's basicly the only example that I know off for AC. As with any sim, I am pretty sure that there are more consumers, but I find it a far stretch to say that "noone serious uses rF2". Are people like Tom Tillmann, Fernando Alonso, Sophia Flörsch or Rudy Van Buren not serious enough?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about engineers. What drivers do in their spare time on their home setups isn't even anything I'm taking into account. If you go by that logic, then iRacing is also a sim that teams "use".
 
V
Premium
tr1v1um said:
I am not going to start a long debate about who uses what here, but that's basicly the only example that I know off for AC. As with any sim, I am pretty sure that there are more consumers, but I find it a far stretch to say that "noone serious uses rF2". Are people like Tom Tillmann, Fernando Alonso, Sophia Flörsch or Rudy Van Buren not serious enough? There are pretty obvious reasons why I wouldn't use a product like AC if I wanted to prepare for tracks like Le Mans, Indianapolis or Monza for example compared to rF2, even if it is just driver preparation. The SlowMotion guys worked together with some of the GP3 teams and you will find certainly more examples of cooperation.

About the rest of this threat: wtf is going on? everyone is going mental. :D People calling the fanbase of a sim arrogant, because they still enjoy a product despite it's flaws. Doesn't this speak for the big strong points of the product that are able to balance it's weakpoint eventhough the product is that old? rF2 recently had it's highest peak player number reached due to the new UI release. Yep, it's not that important ... :rolleyes:

About the prices of rF2 DLC: they are certainly not cheap. Why would anyone claim that? On the other hand you get a product with the option to expand the experience with mods. Has anyone of you thought about the fact, that rF2 is the last moddable sim on the market, atleast from the main products in development? If the current trend keeps on, we will be left with the mercy of developers and publishers at one point, developers that lean towards tactics like micro transactions for skins (I know, shots fired) that force you to drive GT cars till the end of your life or who simply have a monopoly on the content front or that force bad UIs upon their users. For the people who think that Daytona is too expensive, there was a very nice free version released recently. Give that guy a donation as he got pretty unlucky with his release btw. But watching the video of the official Daytona DLC I am sure it's very high quality like the rest of the tracks and I will propably get it, because the DLCs that I acquired have been well worth their money. I think it's great, that the guys from S397 sit down and write long ass wikis for modders so that they have a guidance. In the modding scene that I grew up, there was alot less and everything was and still is trial and error.
Click to expand...
One of the things that I would like to highlight from your post is precisely the fact that rF2 is the only "live" product which OFFICIALLY supports modding.
As everyone can see, those "vile money grabbers" at S397 really have an incredible plan to boost DLC sales :roflmao: as the free Daytona on the workshop illustrates ...
Moreover, in several instances Marcel Offermans - S397's head - said that one of their concerns when making developments on rF2 was to try to avoid "completely breaking" mods with those changes.
S397's track record on mod support may be, if we are honest, uneven and with holes (lack of systematic documentation/information), but, it's there, it exists.
 
T
Btw, to bring this thread back on a positive note. Simply watch this video and tell me that it's not worth it to have a shot at rF2 once in a while. Everything shown in the video is free base content and it perfectly shows why I personaly love this sim despite all it's shortcomming eventhough I know that things can go wrong when I fire up rF2. And I am sure, most of the people here wouldn't have made it through the brigde in an online race. The moment you are heading down there you don't think about if your slip curve is right or just 95 % right. You just feel it that it's right.
:p
 
A
Kyuubeey said:
I started modding AC in early 2014. Otherwise I have no public simulation achievements or accolades, so maybe it's good if you don't trust me.

I don't know if other people want to be named, but it appears Jackson from IER (AC in LMP2) posted some images just now.
Click to expand...
You see, one picture from some random guy tells me NOTHING. I don't even know what that is, and why he posted two pictures of the same car?
He posts pictures of one car and case is closed ;)We don't even know if that team really uses AC, or even if they do, to what extent.

I can post several random pictures without saying a word, and is it going to be proof enough for you that those teams use rF2?

This is one of the reasons I stayed away from RD for a while. Normally I wouldn't even say anything, but as it happens I saw in at least two recent threads you speaking how awful rF2 tire is and how 'everybody serious' uses AC.

I like most of the sims (AC, rF2, AMS1/AMS2, R3E) and enjoy them for different reasons, so I don't really have a horse in this race. Your 'know it all' attitude in every recent rF2 thread struck a wrong chord however.

So is this one picture (posted by somebody else) is all the proof we are getting?
 
Last edited:
Kyuubeey
Rastas said:
A lot of engineers uses rFactor2,and rFPRO doesnt use rF1 tire model.....
Click to expand...
No ****, some teams do use rF2 in dev mode to access the rF1 tire model.

rFPro shipped with rF1 tire model last I checked, although that was a long time ago. Maybe it has changed. Like I said, rFPro is a license for those who are going to use it for either visualization in a commercial context, or to get the ability to swap in their own model.
 
mclarenf1papa
Ami_M3 said:
You see, one picture from some random guy tells me NOTHING. I don't even know what that is, and why he posted two pictures of the same car?
He posts pictures of one car and case is closed ;)We don't even know if that team really uses AC, or even if they do, to what extent.

I can post several random pictures without saying a word, and is it going to be proof enough for you that those teams use rF2?

This is one of the reasons I stayed away from RD for a while. Normally I wouldn't even say anything, but as it happens I saw in at least two recent threads you speaking how awful rF2 tire is and how 'everybody serious' uses AC.

I like most of the sims (AC, rF2, AMS1/AMS2, R3E) and enjoy them for different reasons, so I don't really have a horse in this race. Your 'know it all' attitude in every recent rF2 thread struck a wrong chord however.

So is this one picture (posted by somebody else) is all the proof we are getting?
Click to expand...
Would have been obvious enough if you did a quick google, but I'll piece together the puzzle. First season in LMP2 and first season together as a team...had two pole positions (Sebring 12 hour, 6 hours of the Glen) and a win (6 hours of the Glen), along with 2nd in the championship. Supported by IER for both driver and engineering/setup development.

Just the most public client of ours, but there are others of course...some more "proof" (worked on the LMP3 program as well).
1644096063531.png
1644096136886.png


The drivers we've worked with have said our AC models are more accurate than both the Multimatic (Mazda DPi) and Dallara (Cadillac DPi) models in their respective multimillion-dollar simulators.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest News

Article information

Author
Mike Smith
Article read time
1 min read
Views
22,003
Comments
213
Last update

Share this article

How often do you meet up (IRL) with your simracing friends?

  • Weekly

    Votes: 54 9.3%

  • Monthly

    Votes: 28 4.8%

  • Yearly

    Votes: 35 6.0%

  • Weekly at lan events

    Votes: 3 0.5%

  • Monthly at lan events

    Votes: 2 0.3%

  • Yearly at lan events

    Votes: 13 2.2%

  • Never have

    Votes: 456 78.5%
See comments…
Back
Top