Peoples opinion now of AC physics?

[Msportdan]

Ive been watching a few of these RL vs AV comparison videos, an I'm surprised to see how much AC resembles the movements, corrections and handling of the real life videos. What are peoples opinion of AC latest physics and realism. Of course taking away the AI, is this a contender for most "authentic handling sim" in peoples opinion (not mine) I'm intrigued?

 

[ouvert]

you can probably find vids like this for every sim/simcade out there ... they doesn`t tell much .. mostly how good videomaker is and how well his wheel is setup .. and those mixed reality videos are made very well

for me AC lately becomes rather less enjoyable in light of other sims I have sitting on my HDD .. in terms of reality, I`m no expert .. every iteration of their tyremodel is THE most realistic version, isn`t it? I noticed some oddities in previous TM/physics versions and haven`t really test new TM .. I`ll wait for final version with brake temp (and brake temps affecting tyre temps), etc ... anyway, it is good to see they are still working on things ...

 

[Eduard Mallorquí]

Current state of AC physics engine is not really good, apparently it has been dumbed down for the console version, and there hasn't been any progress lately since consoles are getting all the spotlight. Take into account that most of the physics experts on their forum got banned for highlighting too many issues, so you can get an idea of how much confidence developers have on their physics engine. Not so long ago even the main developer said AC is about providing cars to enjoy rather than being a platform for physics simulation.

Anyway I guess current physics are good enough to take the cars for a spin or get started on sim-racing since it's rather easy to drift the cars like a professional with barely any skills unlike more serious simulators.

 

[Glaurung]

 

[Radu Oros]

Current state of AC physics engine is not really good, apparently it has been dumbed down for the console version, and there hasn't been any progress lately since consoles are getting all the spotlight. Take into account that most of the physics experts on their forum got banned for highlighting too many issues, so you can get an idea of how much confidence developers have on their physics engine. Not so long ago even the main developer said AC is about providing cars to enjoy rather than being a platform for physics simulation.

Anyway I guess current physics are good enough to take the cars for a spin or get started on sim-racing since it's rather easy to drift the cars like a professional with barely any skills unlike more serious simulators.

Refrain from drawing conclusions such as "dumbed down for consoles" if you nor your friends can't enlighten us what was dumbed down.
Is that really all your argument?
The physics experts didn't get banned for highlighting issues, they got banned for their quirky comments and remarks, drifting away from being objective with simply reporting a physics issue. If you'd pay more attention Eduard, you'd notice the improvements to physics and tyres in 1.5 update, including to some things reported by the physics experts. But instead you say the game got dumbed down...

 

[Radu Oros]

Real life has more understeer?

 

[Jos Swarthoff]

Classic msportdan thread

 

[Msportdan]

lol am i famous?

 

[Jake Fangio]

Let the outrage begin!!.

 

[AndrewBo]

Let the outrage begin!!.

Not as long as I am here. Keep this thread CLEAN, please.

 

[natedogg1867]

Dan, why are you asking this question... again...

This is discussed in every single thread about AC that is posted here, and certainly discussed at length in each of the "update" threads that the staff posts... which you even comment in.

You already know this starts flame wars, and the hate that AC receives just riles up the people who actually do like AC, due in large part to the handful of people that cant help but bash AC. But, I guess you are coming out of hibernation again to discuss the already dead horse all over again.

Just search any of the existing AC threads (more precisely the staff posts) and you shall find and read all the drivel you seek.

Current state of AC physics engine is not really good, apparently it has been dumbed down for the console version

You keep regurgitating this nonsense like it is in any way credible and factual. Please prove that this is the case or stop repeating the same old gibberish.

With each of the recent updates to AC, the game improves and becomes more realistic, with features being fleshed out further. You cannot objectively say otherwise.

and there hasn't been any progress lately since consoles are getting all the spotlight.

Are you just trolling to get your name out there? There was the big 1.5 update that released on March 31st that updated the majority of tracks, and updated plenty of other things. Along with the smaller hotfixes that have released multiple times since then. 9 (yes nine) hotixes have come since March 31st, but you clearly dont care about facts. 9 updates in 5 weeks... clearly the devs dont care about PC

So, saying nonsense like PC development has stopped while consoles are being worked on... Well, maybe nonsense like that is why you were banned from the official forum.

yup...

 

[Jake Fangio]

Not as long as I am here. Keep this thread CLEAN, please.

I was referring to the age old sim war's .
Not as you read into it,me looking forward to it.I find them tedious,boring and utterly pointless.

 

[poet]

Off-Topic removed

 

[Jake Fangio]

Off-Topic removed

 

[Brownninja97]

The current flock of sims all have their benefits and cons, problems can be found with each, some are direct issues and others indirectly because its getting too advanced. AC flat out isnt the most hardcore when it comes to physics for multiple reasons. I think its hit that spot of being good enough for most people. The problem is that if they get too real then they enter the territory of having data which random modders will 100% not be able to access data, that results in guessing, the more you guess the higher the chance of a unrealistic values occuring.

Still though until we can see some of the calculations they are using its quite hard to render full judgment on all of this

@Eduard Mallorquí Why do you keep repeating this, David reported some problems he had with the Lotus Exos, Aris provides justification for said issue. David gets angry and crosses the line between being helpful which he mostly was but he got pretty insulting towards the end. Im sure that could have easily be avoided had it not gotten angry or sent a pm instead of public berating. Burrito could do it so could have david. Now please correct me if im wrong

 

[David Dominguez]

Now please correct me if im wrong

We would end earlier pointing out what's right from what you usually post.

 

[Helmut Skrdla]

When there is talk about physics realism I always wonder what gear the people are using. And how that compares to real life.

I honestly can't have fun with the Brabham in RF2, try as I might. I have a cheapo Thrustmaster RGT Clutch wheel, and maybe it doesn't provide enough feedback or whatever. The fact that ISI provides default setups for alien drivers doesn't help either. It's an interesting car with some very nice period tracks waiting to be explored, but it's not fun at all.

OTOH the Lotus 49 in AC is manageable and a ton of fun. It does slide, it's rear does come around, but it's behaving in a way I can understand and handle. It's not making me question my sanity, but it's not a walk in the park either.

Now, give me a full motion platform with a direct drive wheel. Maybe I'll find the Lotus boring and the Brabham suddenly lovely. Even that will not compare with the realistic amount of cues the actual drivers had.

So, what is realism? A 100% accurate data model we drive with barely 50% of the needed cues and feedback detail, but without being subject to G-Force and danger of life and limb? I think we need a better definition.

 

[Dan Allen]

Wow. Now I know how everybody else felt when I started "that" pCARS thread... It's actually very slightly annoying... No offense OP. But between me and OP, lets not make anymore of these threads from now on

 

[Eduard Mallorquí]

When there is talk about physics realism I always wonder what gear the people are using. And how that compares to real life.

I honestly can't have fun with the Brabham in RF2, try as I might. I have a cheapo Thrustmaster RGT Clutch wheel, and maybe it doesn't provide enough feedback or whatever. The fact that ISI provides default setups for alien drivers doesn't help either. It's an interesting car with some very nice period tracks waiting to be explored, but it's not fun at all.

OTOH the Lotus 49 in AC is manageable and a ton of fun. It does slide, it's rear does come around, but it's behaving in a way I can understand and handle. It's not making me question my sanity, but it's not a walk in the park either.

Now, give me a full motion platform with a direct drive wheel. Maybe I'll find the Lotus boring and the Brabham suddenly lovely. Even that will not compare with the realistic amount of cues the actual drivers had.

So, what is realism? A 100% accurate data model we drive with barely 50% of the needed cues and feedback detail, but without being subject to G-Force and danger of life and limb? I think we need a better definition.

The natural feeling you have with the Lotus 49 in AC is because current physics are made for easy drifting and sliding. You can see on the following gifs how the car keeps doing a perfect slide with barely any steering wheel or throttle inputs, bringing fun to the driving experience rather than an actual challenge like real life.

https://gfycat.com/BlandGoodnaturedLark
https://i.gyazo.com/d2484984b662ebc1edc59c5fb8981f0a.mp4

 

[Helmut Skrdla]

Sorry Eduard, but why do I get the feeling you just took a tiny part of what I said, out of context, and used it to attack AC again, without having understood the core of my post?

You write "rather than an actual challenge like real life". First, this sounds like a value judgment, and as such you make everyone who likes AC automatically your enemy. Are you aware of that dynamic in human communication?

Second, let me ask you... how much sideways G Force do you feel in your PC Chair? How much part of the "actually challenge like real life" in drifting a car is to feel what the car is doing trough the seat of your pants so that you can react with appropriate quick steering input? If you make a car on a PC simulator that behaves EXACTLY like the real thing, and you make a very precise steering wheel that allows EXACTLY the real life inputs... but you remove most of the non-visual feedback cues, especially full body cues... is that then the "actual challenge like in real life"? Or is it an artificially increased challenge because you expect 100% exact and appropriatly quick input with less than half the output?

I hope you'll answer this because it would clarify your position on what you expect from a PC Sim.

For myself, I can get my knee down rather easy racing my real life motorbike on the track. GPBikes simulator is hell compared to that, but I'm sure the numbers and models used are very realistic. It just doesn't have my body in it.