I don't seem to get that feeling in either game. I'm on a G25 though, might there be a difference?
The "floaty" sense and problems with grip some mention - any similarity between rF2 and pCARS then? And about the fixed center point thing?
Center point still exists with pcars,
but the problem with rf2 is that ISI have decided to ignore G27's, in fact, first rf2 build was undrivable on the road itself, let alone going over curbs etc, but a modified ini by and large fixed it.
The problem now is that the latest F2 feels horribly disconnected, so I now have to find another ini solution which will more than likely cock up every other car, baring in mind that Watkins Glen is still undrivable for me.
[...]
Netkar and other sims are deemed inferior by ISI forum genius's who either have a different wheel and experience, or who think that controller quality is 2nd to unusable FFB.
Netkar and other sims are deemed inferior by ISI forum genius's who either have a different wheel and experience, or who think that controller quality is 2nd to unusable FFB.
So why would a dev like SMS, using Eero's work, produce "centre point pseudo-physics"?
If it is FFB...
I can only guess it's cheaper than a proper physics model, but I thought the whole point of the community funding was to pay for that aspect in particular.
As far as tin tops go, GSC Camaro is probably the best at feeling like it's got 4 tyres and almost no pendulum effect.....as good as RACEON US muscle cars are, they do have a bit of the pendulum effect at high speed tracks, granted they're 1800kg cars, but so is the GSC Camaro.
I mean that the F3.5 for example feels quite connected at low speeds, but the new F2's FFB all but disappears at times, and just feels downright bad compared to FISI/F3.5 etc, but this is more than likely due to my modified G27 ini....trouble is, it must remain modified as default rf2 FFB is undrivable.
I asked Tim to transfer my rf2 payment to rf1.....let's see what he does, my guess, nothing but continue to admonish me.
Race On muscle cars feel good. Never noticed the pendulum effect and much less the centre point physics (properly used, isiMotor2 doesn't produce these effects).
Even Codies gave up on centre point physics some time ago. Shift's physics engine was basically ISIs physics engine with extra features like turbo modelling and a dynamic tyre model to replace the Pacejka-based tyre model. I'm not a member of pCARs but don't believe for an instant that SMS would develop a centre point physics engine.
People are entitled to their opinion but it would be nice if they stuck to subjective comments like - "I prefer sim As physics model", maybe with reasons such as "IMO sim Bs tyre model is too forgiving." But unless you really know the physics engine "under the hood" its best to avoid getting any more technical.
I can remember Niels Heusinkveld visited the RSC forums from his usual haunts in the LFS forum loudly declaring rFactor was arcade because of the flaws in its physics model. When he actually took time to understand the physics engine he changed his mind and is now hailed as an ISI physics "guru".
The term "arcade" or its little brother "sim-cade" and "semi-sim" should be banned in all sim forums. Lets be honest, they are intended as insults rather than descriptions. The term arcade should be resticted to MarioKart forums where it belongs.
The RF2 tyre model is almost industrial grade in its intricacies and complexities, like a true proper peice of simulation software, rather than a video game sim, maybe this is whats giving him a hard time.
Interesting interview also that he prefers rF1, unfortunately I almost haven't spend any time at all with iRacing and rF2 yet so I can't say much about that for myself. Pretty much sums up the current situation for some people I know or read in forums though. iR and rF2 are not yet where a perfectly configured rF1 or other ISI sims are.
The problem is if you model a 225/45 michelin sports tire there's only one solution within the model that perfectly fits, a few which model a similar enough tire performance, and as he said there's no way to verify you actually have found or not found that compound. So tire forces telemetry and real time rig testing should be included, after all the "x at y" graphs can be extracted from any model at a specific time and condition. Entering "x at y" points will potentially create issues unlike the rF1 MF model which can't be ever inconsistent in physical model and parameters, because no (more or less) full physical model exists in the first place, instead the parameters are always right, wether they are actually right (realistic) or not.
Pretty much sums up the current situation for some people I know or read in forums though. iR and rF2 are not yet where a perfectly configured rF1 or other ISI sims are.
.
You seem to have missed the point that bad physics doesn't necessarily make a game "arcade". It also points out the absurdity of such a term these days.