OverTake.gg
Administrator
Last edited by a moderator:
iRacing Review
- Thread starter OverTake.gg
- Start date
Actually, yes one can understand the effects aero drag and downforce have on chassis and suspensions. That is not what I'm referring to - there is not enough control over body/wing/undercarriage surfaces to directly understand/feel the relation between aero setup changes and car behaviour.
More over, there is no information on what type of aero mapping is done, what equations are being used. Couple that with what I say above and aeros are still an area of uncertainty.
The piece, if I'm not mistaken, is not 2 years old, therefore the "new aero model" hadn't either been released or had undergone "surgery".
Wow.
AC, as far as I know, is not even semi-empirical in nature. They have adopted a physically based modelling, last I read/heard. Even NKP was already transitioning to a more physically oriented model.
As for C.A.R.S., AJ's model is not semi-empirical, let alone empirical. Its foundations are physical, reason why I believe it will take time to...er..."get there". The methodologies he explained for his SM are rather clear on what type of approach he had to drop and which he chose to follow from the ground up.
No. Again, I know of test programs executed by tire engineers in close cooperation with racing teams. The range of "things" they test for are far wider than the usual typical passenger car road test (or rig test). Moreover, some of the test rigs I have seen are far more sophisticated than those tire engineering literature seem to focus on.
There are 2 or 3 conditions which, even with the most sophisticated and robust test setups (fixed, rig based, or mounted on trailers or vehicles), are still difficult to test:
- extreme cold
- extreme humidity
- dirt/irregular surfaces
But, as I said, these tests are quite costly and are usually done for a specific purpose. They are doable, but require close cooperation between different teams, significant resources and money.
No, on the contrary. The data is, shall we say, far reaching in that unusual conditions are simulated/performed (very high pressures, very low pressures, at reasonably high speeds, at different levels of degradation and wear, different temperatures, from shallow camber angles to unusual camber angles, very high loads for an individual tire).
The difficulty these teams have lies in extracting the data efficiently (with as little loss and deviation as possible). Contrary to typical tests (where extreme conditions are scrapped off as...noise by Michelin/Goodyear/etc), these tests give reasonably comprehensive pictures of what is happening.
That is not to say that everything there is to know is...knowable. No.
No, it only means that depending on manufacturers (cars, tires, etc) is perhaps proving to be more troublesome now than in the past.
Again, I refer you back to this simple analysis:
- from data (and I'm not saying typical, downsized data obtained from some 10 year old road car test; no, I refer to more complete tests), you derive behaviour. All you have to do is find the algorithms (math wise but also code wise) to achieve that behaviour. Not easy, but feasible and reasonably accurate.
- or you come up with a set of assumptions on tire construction and compounds and from there try to derive behaviour.
No approach is flawless, no. But one has proven itself. The other not.
I know, you will again say that tire tests don't look for extreme conditions, and I will again say that I have seen data from very costly and complete tests. In the end, the reasoning behind the transition you alluded to previously is this: we have to transition because tire data is incomplete; it's not the method/model that is wrong, but rather the data it's being fed on, but lets blame it on the model instead. Well, why not spend a little more money on what really matters (finding the proper data, funding proper, comprehensive tests) instead of millions invested on assumptions that may be proven wrong? Easy, novelty sells and looks the part (i.e., hey, it solves old problems, a saviour).
Just because development studios are following that trend it doesn't mean it is the right one.
Tire/Race engineers laugh a bit at the claims being put in the open about simracing's "physical tire modelling". They do praise the ingenuity of it, but results wise or believability? Nah.
I read that many times, I know CalSpan was somewhat involved. But that says nothing about what I asked. [You yourself can go to CalSpan and ask them (or any other testing facility) to perform a zillion tests.] But do you know anything about the validity of the tests performed for iRacing? No.
Well, it doesn't work that way. The way some people are acting is similar to a group of fans of a certain renown physicist - they claimed he was close to a Theory of Everything. Here, it's DK's Theory of Everything for the Tire, just plug in compound/carcass formulas (chemical formulas, materials stress formulas, etc, etc, etc) and voilá a real tire is made on 1s and 0s.
It doesn't work like that. You and I know better than that.
I've thought for a while that they really need a tire manufacturer partnership to fully realize the model, or at the very least to hire a proper tire engineer so DK doesn't have to do the tire constructions as well as the background math. Someone who knows how to build a proper race tire with practical knowledge, rather than DK who's doing all his learning through books. Remember, I think the tires feel like poorly designed tires
Yes, and you thought correctly. If someone intends to replicate a physical tire, one must build one from the ground up - in real life. But then, as I said above, no two tires are identical, so you'll still have to contend with the fact that you are only building ONE unique tire with a certain carcass and construction, with a certain ratio of compounds, you cannot extrapolate to tires that are rather different from that one.
That is the big fallacy of physical tire modelling as some profess it to be.
IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT.
I know what the goal is, I have said it all along.
But, again, you are assuming it is more methodical for making predictions, when specialists say the opposite. Based on what do you assert it's more methodical? What sources? What tests? What data?
The most methodical systems I know are those that combine physical facets of the tire with the more convenient and known aspects of MF, all of this fed with specific and costly tire tests.
That is speculation on your part. How do you know the re-dimensioning of tires (from the smaller to the bigger tire, or conversely, from the bigger to the smaller one) will produce the results it ought? How do you arrive at the idea that different tires (or, in your example, tires of the same brand but of different size) require little more than rework around collected data?
It is far more complicated than that. But curiously, we are asked to understand that semi-empirical models are based on insufficient / fallible assumptions, but conversely accept the premises/assumptions for physical modelling...Weird reasoning.
All I can say is this: no need to take my word for it, work with or even talk to people in the industry (at least those that have been in the midst of it all: F1/Indy/FIA GT/tire testing/tire design/simulations). You'll understand what I'm saying - even if you disagree here and there.
Or, perhaps the simple answer is, because DK is looking for a challenge
Ah, bingo.
Last I heard, AC was taking captured slip curves, shaping them to behave nicely (for example, manually adding high slip to be well behaved instead of calculating/measuring), then interpolating/extrapolating based on all the fun parameters (temp, camber, pressure, etc). I'd call that pretty empirical at its root.
I have no idea what pCARS is doing, since all the dev talk is done in private and I don't have access to the forums. I defer to your knowledge.
Nailed it, the tire tests to get complete data sets are costly. If you're talking about a few cars on a few types of tire, maybe not a problem. iRacing seems to be banking on a system that doesn't require such detailed data, since they've got so many tires to build. Not sure where you think iRacing is spending millions on this (Maybe one million? 5yrs DK salary @$200k/yr seems to ballpark it around there) but the hope I'm sure is to do this work upfront instead of for every single tire later.
It's absolutely a problem of garbage in, garbage out. I submit that construction becomes the new spot data is lacking with a physical model, hence the need for a tire engineer.
I agree as well. A physical model requires a high level of maturity before it becomes noticeably better than the standard models. A simple empirical model is better than a simple physical model. A good empirical model and good physical model are probably about equal (don't think NTM has reached 'good' yet, somewhere between mediocre and decent). But an excellent physical model would be unmatched by one that required empirical test data. Again, the debate being whether iRacing can/will ever reach that level.
I believe it, proof will need to be in the pudding.
I know they tested mostly high slip stuff, DK talked about having 'fun' smoking tires and how expensive it was. But yeah, we don't particularly know more details, and probably never will. Devs seem to rarely give them up freely.
Not sure what specifically you mean. Can you elaborate on 'no two tires are identical'?
Perhaps scientific is a better word? It's going back to first principles, isolate how rubber and steel work, then put them together to learn how tires work, rather than testing to isolate the many inputs and outputs from tires in their entirety. Both means to the same end, working opposite directions. To me, trying to distill individual component effects from only the entire system as a whole feels a bit more 'guess and check'. And again, which do you have more data for?
I would say empirical is much better (certainly simpler) at interpolating, but extrapolation requires some form of assumptions (preferrably based on science) no matter what. If you're using physical properties out there in the extrapolation region, why not use them everywhere?
I have no doubt there's skepticism. I'm not saying DK will succeed, I just understand where he's coming from and why he's attempting it. I think he's close enough that unless he has already hit a brick wall that the model will be 'good enough', the question is more over whether he succeeds in making a tire model better than all the competitors. I think AC has an incredibly elegant tire model, Dave is going to have to show significant improvements over it to be worth the development time when AC has spent less than 2 years on theirs.
Hmm, I was told differently. And that married perfectly with what Stefano stated in 2011:
The above is, in the opinion of experts, the best approach to tire modelling. If AC really has gone much beyond that (this was what I was told, in a nutshell) and into a full physical model, then we'll all be in for a disappointment (at the same level or worst than iRacing).
C.A.R.S.: a different case, no doubt.The information we have has enough detail to understand what type of foundation it has and the direction it is taking. Obviously, we cannot disclose this and talk about it outside of WMD and I will respect that.
I understand. But to be very blunt: with our present day technology, THERE IS NO WAY TO FULLY CAPTURE A TIRE RIGHT DOWN TO THE COMPOUND LEVEL (ie, chemical formulas interlaced in complex algorithms that provide a thermodynamics evolution of the tire). You can approach it, you can try to make it mimic some behaviour, but it will not be anywhere close to the real tire. Hence what I said: there's absolutely no need to go full physical given our present-day technology constraints. Maybe in the future, who knows, at some star-trekkian holo-deck, but not now.
But that is the problem right there: not only do all the physical and mathematical algorithms lack maturity (call it lack of information, lack of data, lack of knowledge) but the tech required for that is far away from being sufficiently effective. Hence why industry people do not put much faith in computer geek originated models.
As an aside, in regards to the "computer geek" scene: last year (or was it 2011) there were a couple of google "science talks" where some...er...computer geek (actually, a renown computer scientist) elaborated on his models and views on quantum mechanics and the nature of reality. Lots of impressive tech talk (a physical scientist commented "lots of pseudo-science") and voilá, everybody impressed at the man's notions of space-time and the nature of reality (oh, yeah, and his understanding of physical laws governing...the universe).
Then, presentation was over, and questions started pouring in. Do you want to have a good laugh? You don't need to watch Modern Family or The Big Bang Theory, just watch these conferences and watch the train wreck at the end, where physicists, astrophysicists and mathematicians question his assumptions and try to ascertain how deep he knows quantum mechanics. "Oh, well, I well have to defer to ...[...] I am not an expert on that[...] We have physicists in the audience that may explain this better"...
Bla bla bla. Sells great.
In theory.
In practice, not a single model of those "physical models" full of bells and whistles is to be used for predictive purposes. Therefore, far away from being good, let alone "excellent".
We might as well say with a super-Cell type of cpu technology, console games would suffer quantum leaps in quality and realism. Problem is: is there a super-Cell cpu? No. That's a rationalization of pure and simple speculation. Same goes for the "excellent physical model".
Given the elements in a tire ( steel, fabric, synth rubber, carbon black, from the tread to the body), there are enough variables to cause (even with minute variations) to cause significant differences in tire behaviour. Basically, as we know, no two tires are alike, even if they're from the same brand/series. Therefore, capturing the differences (whilst basing the model on chosen physical characteristics that are intended to represent the physical tire) is not a linear task, if at all possible.
Therefore, a lot of people contend that, instead of that, marry portions of the physical description of the tire with MF based quantities (slip, etc). At least with that, and given the proper set of data, we can get some measure of predictive work to be done from such a model. Otherwise, no.
But we're somewhat going in circles here. I understand your point of view, we have several contact points between our views, but in the end you put faith in something I have no data nor reason to believe in.
Moreover, to my knowledge, some of the specialists I have had the good fortune of talking to have been investigating organic compounds, polymers, monomers, etc. All of them, regardless of having ties to oil and tire companies (a British born professor of mine is part of a team under contract with BP in a project related to polymers obtained from certain monomers in a novel process) or not, follow scientific principles and methods, all of them require significant amounts of time from cluster-computers for their models. Their knowledge and practice could propel rubber and tire modelling in the right direction and by leaps and bounds - but they're not the ones behind our racing sims, and given the choice they'd rather choose the existing models (as built and refined by TNO) than embark in such speculations. I suspect that some of their work constitutes the bulk of the current models used by tire makers (the kinds of models we barely hear a whisper of).
What should matter is: can we use these models for predictive purposes? TNO says yes, but their models are highly complex entities combining the best of both worlds, not speculative, ball-park approaches to "physical tires".
If what I was told is true - then they're all gone "physical"., But I hope that is wrong.
If you're right, and given part of the interview given by Stefano we can get the hints at this as well, then hats off to Kunos for knowing what really works best. Actually, he has done nothing but show people how to properly use Pacejka/semi-empirical models, one way or another.
Full physicals or full theoreticals and their oceans of assumptions? No thank you.
Yeah, that's the quote I read as well. Generating a 'base curve' or 'slip profile' sounds pretty empirical at its base to me. When I think physical model, I think what Dave's doing where no empirical test data gets input at all. Every modern empirical formula does at least some physical modeling on top, call it semi-empirical if you will.
We will see how they market the pCARS one, until then I would say the only model we know of publically as being fully physical is the iRNTM.
I think Dave's banking on it being close enough. The people expecting Dave to sell the NTM back to the tire companies are a little over-excited. It will never reach that level, but probably doesn't need to in order to be a suitable model for racing.
To me, if the tires are different enough to have noticeably varying performance, wouldn't that make empirical models less useful? Tire tests usually use multiple tires, and if each is different the data will either be confusing or require multiples of each test to find the mean/median values. With a physical model you just ignore that and give everyone the ideal tire.
Does any sim actually give drivers different tires? I don't think it's worth caring about when it comes to sims, the point is all our equipment is idealized. Everyone starts in identically prepared cars, there is no 'oh my engine makes 2HP more than yours' or 'oh no, my wheel rim is slightly imbalanced unlike yours'.
I'm not sure how much you think I'm banking on the NTM. I think it will be suitable enough for use to not be the worst tire model of this generation of sims. I'm also pretty sure it won't be the best tires of any sim. My interest is more of the engineering curiosity of it, and being glad that they took a high-risk/high-reward proposition instead of something low risk. So long as the tires behave reasonably, iRacing will stay where I like to race. I didn't join for the tires in the first place, I joined because the multiplayer was top notch. All I'm looking for is the NTM not to bring down the quality of the overall product (not that I might not trade it for the AC tire model if it's head and shoulders above everything else, or for rF2's Real Road, etc).
Right, the slip profile solution is elegant, and to me that's just as exciting as a fully physical model that requires much more development for mediocre results.
It's a good thing 2012 is the year of the sims when all of these new sims launch to challenge iRacing 2.0 which was an absolute revolution in sim racing. Oh wait
It is, at least for vehicle dynamics. If you need the molecular structure of a tire then you have to do a full physical analysis. For vehicle dynamics I agree, contact patch, carcass and tread with the benefit of tire force / slip matrices looks like the best solution in all conditions. I'm not sure at which point it is considered to be semi-empirical and at which point not (glass half empty or half full?
) Non realtime and/or vehicle dynamics full physical maybe are even "more exciting" (except for sim racing
) and in the end can be valuable for gathering data which then can be used in other models. I'm thinking about extreme pressure, temp or wear which the realtime model don't even need that accurate because at some point handling will degrade so it's much harder to notice or a good approximation will suffice.
It's a good thing 2012 is the year of the sims when all of these new sims launch to challenge iRacing 2.0 which was an absolute revolution in sim racing. Oh wait
Not a knock on you but I really don't think iRacing cares about who is challenging them or not. They have plenty of fanboys willing to fork over $ to them and blindly follow. I personally won't be purchasing any new content unless Kansas is added to an oval schedule. The last piece of content I purchased in the last 9 months was the McLaren. The only way you can force their hand is to stop paying, and personally like I mentioned I think there are plenty of people who are of the opinion that just because they paid for something that is expensive it automatically means better and the best and that keeps their lights on in the office.
I won't be purchasing anything new from iRacing for a long time, I won't be getting the L49 due to a lack of interest, and it is questionable if I will pay for the RUF due to how I know the physics work on other cars. I am up in the air about re-upping in November when my sub expires. It will be around a build so that will be a deciding factor.
I finally got my hands on rFactor2 and cant stop driving it. the 370z and Corvette in their current state are awesome and so much more believable physics wise than any road racing cars I have ever driven on iRacing.
I hope iRacing staff have hopped on rFactor2 or AC's Tech Preview and have seen what they are going to run up against. If not have atleast felt what a simulation should feel like.
Well, they have a lot of 'haters' who subscribe multiple years in advance too, lol
I doubt they have enough people like that to cover the bills the way they want, though. They're definitely interested in keeping subscriber numbers up, and that means being interested in the competition and the market to continue growing.
I absolutely agree. Nothing bugs me more than when people try and say they're "forced" to pay for iRacing. Nobody's forcing them to do anything, they just can't make the best choice and cut their losses.
Being around build time is good and bad. Get to see the latest, but sometimes get the rosy glasses, lol. But there's nothing wrong with lapsing and coming back later to try it out, or maintaining with a promotional rate for the occasional race on your current content.
I have some issues with how they monetize iRacing, not because I don't like to pay for the products I use a lot but because I feel they are "double diping" when they charge both a monthly fee and a one time fee for cars and tracks (and quite high prices at that too). I'd be fine with either or, both are just a bit too much.
That said, I honestly believe and feel that no other sim on the market is close to delivering the overall package that iRacing does. I enjoy the physics a lot, even on road cars, the graphics are among the better of released sims and the SR/iR system together with perpetual online races being held puts it way ahead of any other sim currently out (this is my opinion and thus not a subject up for discussion ).
This is why I reluctantly pay for iRacing.
I hope that the release of AC can change that, but I'm not holding my breath.
That said, I honestly believe and feel that no other sim on the market is close to delivering the overall package that iRacing does. I enjoy the physics a lot, even on road cars, the graphics are among the better of released sims and the SR/iR system together with perpetual online races being held puts it way ahead of any other sim currently out (this is my opinion and thus not a subject up for discussion
).This is why I reluctantly pay for iRacing.
I hope that the release of AC can change that, but I'm not holding my breath.
Of course, if you're still willing to pay it, then it can't be 'too much', can it? You must have decided it's worth it for the entertainment you've derived. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but if it was actually 'too much' than you wouldn't have bought it.I have some issues with how they monetize iRacing, not because I don't like to pay for the products I use a lot but because I feel they are "double diping" when they charge both a monthly fee and a one time fee for cars and tracks (and quite high prices at that too). I'd be fine with either or, both are just a bit too much.
That said, I honestly believe and feel that no other sim on the market is close to delivering the overall package that iRacing does. I enjoy the physics a lot, even on road cars, the graphics are among the better of released sims and the SR/iR system together with perpetual online races being held puts it way ahead of any other sim currently out (this is my opinion and thus not a subject up for discussion
This is why I reluctantly pay for iRacing.
I hope that the release of AC can change that, but I'm not holding my breath.
Though I agree, a method of one payment or the other to drop overall prices would likely increase membership, and I'm all for that. Question is whether the membership would increase enough to be a net positive. Probably depends on competition, like you said unless there's an overall package that makes iRacing not worth the price...
While I both understand and partially agree with your reasoning that "if you pay it, it's not TOO much", I still claim that it is and here's a little on why;
I think it IS too much, I'm principally against it because I think it's borderline ripping off the customers, but I want access and the only way I can have access is to suck it up and pay them, at least until a better and cheaper alternative comes around. Also, the fact that I can afford it doesn't necessarily mean I don't think it's too expensive compared to the competitors.
Also, the last couple of weeks I have raced iRacing very very little, this because I would have had to buy more tracks to be able to race and even though I've had the money for it I feel that I've spent enough on iRacing recently so I'm holding back a little for now.
I think it IS too much, I'm principally against it because I think it's borderline ripping off the customers, but I want access and the only way I can have access is to suck it up and pay them, at least until a better and cheaper alternative comes around. Also, the fact that I can afford it doesn't necessarily mean I don't think it's too expensive compared to the competitors.
Also, the last couple of weeks I have raced iRacing very very little, this because I would have had to buy more tracks to be able to race and even though I've had the money for it I feel that I've spent enough on iRacing recently so I'm holding back a little for now.
I have joined iRacing a week ago, cause I am tired of waiting for AC. After a week and getting D licence i 3 days, I can tell it that it is annoying sim. I absolutely hate mazda. I had to turn down ffb to 0,4 in .ini file because of agressive ABS which could possibly destroy my wheel. Also mazda gives no feeling of what's happening. In AC I can pin point what is going on, in Mazda in iRacing... not so much. And since I can race only this and Cadillac which series is absolutely empty, my experience with iRacing isn't to good.
Yes I am using linear mode since monday. 0% dumping in game, 100% in logitech software. What do you mean Caddy for free ? I already raced Caddy on Zolder but barely anyone plays there. I am lucky to get 4 people in race. Most of time there are 2 of us or I am alone...
Dumping some info here:
Matt Bell (Grand Am and ALMS)
Okay, I know there are more than just a couple "is iRacing realistic" threads out here, but the Highcroft is REALLY getting annoying. I have raced in Petit LeMans, in the rain, and can tell you that a prototype is NOT as twitchy as this game implies. I have not been playing with it much, but I have spoken with many of the drivers of such prototypes. I promise that they are much easier to drive than this games makes them. It is very frustrating being a professional race car driver and struggling so much in a GAME.
2 things: the bumps at the exit of T5 at Road America are damn close to flat in a P1 car, not hovering at maybe 25% throttle to avoid spinning like in iRacing. Part of the problem is that they make it seem like once the car is sideways it is completely un-savable. True, but they don't go sideways as much as they do in iRacing, at least not as fast. Prototypes have a ton of feedback through the wheel that let you know where the limit is. With force feedback cranked 100% with no dampening with a brand new G27 wheel, I get no feedback as to what the car is doing until it is too late!
Second thing: TRACTION CONTROL. Every P1, P2, and GT2 car has traction control. It is not infallible, but it does help a lot. Why can this game replicate (poorly, but there regardless) ABS, but not TCS?! The GT car I drove had 11 settings of traction control that we played with as friction changed in the tire and on the track. You could still beat it, but it definitely helped with that much power.
Wolfgang Reip (GT3 Driver)-
Hello guys,
Before talking about physics I can tell you that the guy who spin in front of me in the McLAren was a gentleman driver... In Blancpain some drivers are 10sec a lap off pace.... And he was one of them.
So it's not a good exemple.
The McLaren is one of the best GT3 car. On Silverstone they were a bit struggling but as an overall package it's a very good car.
To be honest I didn't race on iR for few months but the biggest problem is not really the grip itself but the way the car react once sliding. Some slides are uncatchable and they would be in reality.
Like burning the tires for warming them it's pretty easy to do in reality when you are use to, not in iRacing.
Except that I think that the feel of no grip comes from the fact that behind the screen you don't realise how fast you are driving if it was in reality and therefore you slide and feel slow at the same time. When you are used to the F1 for exemple, and you go back to the McLaren, it feels like a turttle and in reality it's already pretty fast!
I don't know if the cars are still much faster with cold tires in iRacing?
But anyway the overall level of grip is the problem, it's definitly how the car react once sliding.
Matt Bell (Grand Am and ALMS)
Okay, I know there are more than just a couple "is iRacing realistic" threads out here, but the Highcroft is REALLY getting annoying. I have raced in Petit LeMans, in the rain, and can tell you that a prototype is NOT as twitchy as this game implies. I have not been playing with it much, but I have spoken with many of the drivers of such prototypes. I promise that they are much easier to drive than this games makes them. It is very frustrating being a professional race car driver and struggling so much in a GAME.
2 things: the bumps at the exit of T5 at Road America are damn close to flat in a P1 car, not hovering at maybe 25% throttle to avoid spinning like in iRacing. Part of the problem is that they make it seem like once the car is sideways it is completely un-savable. True, but they don't go sideways as much as they do in iRacing, at least not as fast. Prototypes have a ton of feedback through the wheel that let you know where the limit is. With force feedback cranked 100% with no dampening with a brand new G27 wheel, I get no feedback as to what the car is doing until it is too late!
Second thing: TRACTION CONTROL. Every P1, P2, and GT2 car has traction control. It is not infallible, but it does help a lot. Why can this game replicate (poorly, but there regardless) ABS, but not TCS?! The GT car I drove had 11 settings of traction control that we played with as friction changed in the tire and on the track. You could still beat it, but it definitely helped with that much power.
Wolfgang Reip (GT3 Driver)-
Hello guys,
Before talking about physics I can tell you that the guy who spin in front of me in the McLAren was a gentleman driver... In Blancpain some drivers are 10sec a lap off pace.... And he was one of them.
So it's not a good exemple.
The McLaren is one of the best GT3 car. On Silverstone they were a bit struggling but as an overall package it's a very good car.
To be honest I didn't race on iR for few months but the biggest problem is not really the grip itself but the way the car react once sliding. Some slides are uncatchable and they would be in reality.
Like burning the tires for warming them it's pretty easy to do in reality when you are use to, not in iRacing.
Except that I think that the feel of no grip comes from the fact that behind the screen you don't realise how fast you are driving if it was in reality and therefore you slide and feel slow at the same time. When you are used to the F1 for exemple, and you go back to the McLaren, it feels like a turttle and in reality it's already pretty fast!
I don't know if the cars are still much faster with cold tires in iRacing?
But anyway the overall level of grip is the problem, it's definitly how the car react once sliding.
That post from Matt Bell is very old. Now the situation is changed, cars are a lot more stable over bumps, and easier to catch slides.
Can't understand why someone continue to refer to old version of NTM.
Edit: 2 newer posts from Matt Bell
"So I'm usually on here ranting about how something doesn't work in real life as it does in iRacing. Today, however, is for a different type of post. Today I am going to thank iRacing for doing a relatively great job with the McLaren MP4-12C GT3 car that I used to get ready for the Roar test at Daytona.
This year I have been signed to APR to drive in their privateer-entry #51 Audi R8 LMS/Grand-Am in the 24h. The week before the test, I spent 3-6 hours per day playing with Daytona (day and night) with the MP4 to just run laps and try to remember how to go fast there. I have to say, they did a great job with both the track and the car. The ways I learned to go fast with the MP4 were similar in ways I learned to drive the Camaro GT.R last year-- if a bit different in logical ways. The ways I figured to go fast with the MP4 translated very well to the real life R8 LMS, despite some obvious differences.
The only ways I felt the simulated car suffered were in snappy oversteer with no ability to save it, and poor reaction to apex curbs. Just about everything else served as a good lesson in driving a car like this on that track. Where cars like the DP annoy me with their odd physics, the MP4 was dead on, from what I can tell. Good job, iRacing. "
"Lol... I think I've driven some cars clearly setup by iRacing. Seriously, though, the sim is very good, very close. It just requires tweaking. We've discussed before that the staff is surely stretched pretty thin as far as jobs to complete, but it would be nice to fundamentally remove the car's innate tendency to snap sideways and never come back."
In conclusion... IMO anyone can say iR is "perfect", in fact is far from it, it needs improvements and fine tweaking, but is also very far to be "broken" like someone wants to show.
Can't understand why someone continue to refer to old version of NTM.
Edit: 2 newer posts from Matt Bell
"So I'm usually on here ranting about how something doesn't work in real life as it does in iRacing. Today, however, is for a different type of post. Today I am going to thank iRacing for doing a relatively great job with the McLaren MP4-12C GT3 car that I used to get ready for the Roar test at Daytona.
This year I have been signed to APR to drive in their privateer-entry #51 Audi R8 LMS/Grand-Am in the 24h. The week before the test, I spent 3-6 hours per day playing with Daytona (day and night) with the MP4 to just run laps and try to remember how to go fast there. I have to say, they did a great job with both the track and the car. The ways I learned to go fast with the MP4 were similar in ways I learned to drive the Camaro GT.R last year-- if a bit different in logical ways. The ways I figured to go fast with the MP4 translated very well to the real life R8 LMS, despite some obvious differences.
The only ways I felt the simulated car suffered were in snappy oversteer with no ability to save it, and poor reaction to apex curbs. Just about everything else served as a good lesson in driving a car like this on that track. Where cars like the DP annoy me with their odd physics, the MP4 was dead on, from what I can tell. Good job, iRacing. "
"Lol... I think I've driven some cars clearly setup by iRacing. Seriously, though, the sim is very good, very close. It just requires tweaking. We've discussed before that the staff is surely stretched pretty thin as far as jobs to complete, but it would be nice to fundamentally remove the car's innate tendency to snap sideways and never come back."
In conclusion... IMO anyone can say iR is "perfect", in fact is far from it, it needs improvements and fine tweaking, but is also very far to be "broken" like someone wants to show.
They might be refering to some old version of NTM, but the phenomenons they are refering to are very much still present in the game. If much better than before, it's not perfect still.
I love iRacing and I think the physics are really good, but then again I like the challenge of cars that will punish you hard if you overdrive them (even though I'm slow as hell in them).
It just makes for more satisfaction when you get it right imo.
I love iRacing and I think the physics are really good, but then again I like the challenge of cars that will punish you hard if you overdrive them (even though I'm slow as hell in them
).It just makes for more satisfaction when you get it right imo.
Can't understand why someone would exaggerate the criticism being done just to justify that it actually is not that bad...when in fact, many of us are saying (try and catch it this time): iRacing is a good sim, but the tire model has serious problems. Who cares about "being broken" when the issue is that the TM has problems?
The parts in bold are exactly what many professionals and simracers complain about iRacing, OTM or NTM. Of course the sim is close, but those details keep it from actually being the "best ever sim". And as long as those "details" are there, people (not pro drivers) will continue to adapt their behaviour to take advantage of those shortcomings.
I was told there are other pro drivers giving their feedback and while they acknowledge (as most of us do) some progress is apparent, they still complain of the same issues. It would be great if you and others posted that as well.
Precisely.
Of course, iRacing can still be fun and it is fun - quite probably, the fun one derives from it depends on what one's expectations are (the higher the expectations, the less fun because the shortcomings will be that much obvious).
But the issues are real and still there.
It's all relative, as Chronus says we don't think iRacing is terrible or want them to fail. It is just mind blowing that 2 years into the NTM you have a professional driver in Matt Bell from 2 years ago being echoed by a GT3 driver today saying the cars are not savable and suffer from many odd problems with low speed grip and slide recoverey.
Even in his McLaren review Matt Bell still admits that there is issues over the curbing which is extremely important to many car/track combos on the service and real life. It's game breaking and I really dont feel they have made many improvements except for reeling in that one odd build where the cars had to be basically driven in a straight line or you were wrecking(oval side atleast).
Even in his McLaren review Matt Bell still admits that there is issues over the curbing which is extremely important to many car/track combos on the service and real life. It's game breaking and I really dont feel they have made many improvements except for reeling in that one odd build where the cars had to be basically driven in a straight line or you were wrecking(oval side atleast).
If they can't save a drift in iRacing they suck! Cos I can and I suck! xD
Jokes aside, yes it feels harder than it probably would be in real life, but it IS possible, I HAVE done it.
Jokes aside, yes it feels harder than it probably would be in real life, but it IS possible, I HAVE done it.
Latest News
-
2024 Formula One Canadian Grand PrixMontréal is the location for round 9 of the 2024 Formula One World Championship. The Circuit...- Connor Minniss
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Test Drive Unlimited Solar Crown Demo Available On SteamAfter its release date being announced recently, Test Drive Unlimited Solar Crown is now...- Yannik Haustein
- Updated:
- 2 min read
-
Monster Jam Showdown: "Freestyle" Trailer Shows More GameplayAnother week, another teaser trailer for Monster Jam Showdown. This time, it is all about...
- Connor Minniss
- Updated:
- 2 min read
-
Sim Racing, Friends & Fun: MOZA R3 Bundle Community Launch Event RecapFor the first time ever, the OverTake office opened its doors to the community for the MOZA R3...
- Yannik Haustein
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
F1 24 Handling Update To Drop June 7The state of the F1 24 handling at launch was a problem for many players. EA Sports and...
- Yannik Haustein
- Updated:
- 2 min read
-
IndyCar Secures Game Assets Following Settlement With Motorsport Games (Updated)After intending to terminate the license in late 2023, IndyCar has reached a settlement with...
- Yannik Haustein
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
Formula Ford Festival Lights Up Automobilista 2The Formula Ford Festival, once a pillar of the UK Motorsport calendar, debuts in Automobillista...
- Connor Minniss
- Updated:
- 4 min read