One game’s trash is another game’s gold…

The Sim Community never ceases to amaze me, and the Formula Renault 3.5 is just the latest example in a long like of “dude, what?” moments that make me question my own sanity. Maybe this site isn’t good for my health.

The Formula Renault 3.5 is default content in rFactor 2, and YouTube personality EmptyBox gave an updated overview of rFactor 2 in April of this year, quickly glancing over the car in a nearly seventeen minute video touching on everything new rFactor 2 had to offer in 2015 – which was a lot:

Despite rFactor 2’s physics being regarded as superior to everything else on the market by real race car drivers, including top teams actually switching to an ISI power plant for their in-house simulations, as well as the top online racing leagues all using rF2 as their platform, community reception to both the FR 3.5, and the sim in general, were lukewarm.

The most problematic issue being the astronomical costs for the sim – $40 to run the game offline, and another $40 to play the game online for any substantial length of time. ISI essentially took the EA Sports Season Pass, something that was canned after only a few years for being retarded, and tried to implement it into sim racing as if it were here to stay. They still haven’t gotten with the times, but those who can afford it, really like it.

Of course, the same kids who complain about rFactor 2’s costs have no problem signing up for iRacing, but that’s a different story.

Fast forward to the middle of August, and the Formula Renault 3.5 has been put out for Assetto Corsa by Virtua Simulazioni.

I don’t doubt that Virtua Simulazioni have done a fantastic job with the Formula Renault 3.5, because every other mod they’ve released has been worth downloading. However, I (that means, this is my opinion, so chill the fuck out) find it odd that people are suddenly excited for a car they were totally uninterested in six months ago when it came out for a different, more feature-complete game.

“You fucking faggot, how dare you say AC isn’t feature-complete?!?!”

Alright, I’ll let someone else say it for me. I’m not sure if this guy passes the known troll detectors some of you have, but that’s what the comments section is for:

pumba2Again, people couldn’t care less when the FR 3.5 came out for rFactor 2 as really good default content, but suddenly the same car is in a game with less features & functionality, and people are losing their minds:

So you’ve got the same identical car in two modern sims, made to the same level of quality, and people ignore the one in the finished game, opting to drive the car in a sim where forum users contradict themselves trying to defend its flaws and shortcomings.

quit Meanwhile I’m just sitting here preparing for another racing season in Game Stock Car Extreme, where I can focus on racing and not waiting for updates or fighting with people in the forums over the state of the game.


102 thoughts on “One game’s trash is another game’s gold…

  1. One version is free (as far as content-‘unlocking’ goes), the other itself is tied to the purchase of a game.

    That’s my guess of its sudden popularity, ease of access & such.


      1. Yes I know that, but this is about specific content, not the games themselves.

        rF2’s Formula Renault is in-house, made by ISI, and is tied to the purchase of the game.

        Virtua Simulazioni made their own Formula Renault, for AC, for free, for those who want it / are interested.

        Would you rather pay for rF2’s content, use it a week, then rarely touch it again despite paying for it ?


        Would you like to try Formula Renault specifically for free, seeing how most already own AC to begin with ?

        That’s my case, I saw rF2 had F. Renault content, but didn’t feel like buying the game for just that. Then along comes Virtua Simulazioni, with content for a game I already had (for other content interests), and suddenly I could try something I was interested in, for free.

        That’s my guess why it’s been well received, it’s free for a game most ‘sim racing’ fans already have – for one reason or another.


  2. I don’t pay enough attention to know if he’s ‘known’ or not.

    However, his list seems to contain entirely legitimate points. Those are all aspects that could use attention. The only outlier at this time would be time progression, as the other aspects he mentions are more important for consistent racing.

    What I don’t get is this talk of ‘marketing’. Perhaps I just haven’t seen it, still seems pretty low-key from my perspective. Perhaps what they really mean is that the game was released from early access too quickly.


    1. Once I saw a post on VirtualR a user listed stuff that was on rFactor release that are still not in AC. Man.. it was a impressive list for 10 years of gap.
      AC is disappointing, totally regret buying it


      1. If everyone wanted to play a copy of rfactor, then people would have bought rfactor in the first place and not AC. If rfactor is so great, why in the first place you had to buy a new sim racing game? Were you unsatisfied and bored with rfactor? So I guess you had to look else where, and even if AC is not for your current liking, you’re still not playing rfactor.


      2. Well, don’t forget the giant lead in development that they got to work from. We are talking a >10 year gap in base development. It would be impossible for Kunos to start from comparatively nothing and catch up to the long-term ISI base in the current timeframe.

        The fact that there’s any sort of comparison going on indicates that rf2 has dropped the ball somewhat. Considering their pre-existing IP, they should be dominating.


      3. @e123 sorry for late answer. Kunos didn’t start from nothing, if they did their job would be considered decent, you need to know Kunos better, he has years (more than a decade I think) of experience and previous work that was injected into AC. Trust me AC could be a lot better if his mind wasn’t like “this or that’s for hardcore sim racers so I won’t add it” IMO either people like sim racing or they don’t, there is no such thing as hardcore sim racer when we talk about simulation.

        @anonym idk why you are so butthurt, I guess one of the AC fanboys. I had expectatives about AC, bought it way too long ago, and got disappointed, simply as that

        @Anonymous can’t anymore, I tried but they didn’t let me 😦


  3. One other thing: Rf ‘pro’ is an entirely separate endeavor in terms of physics and does not include tire simulation. The tire simulation is provided through 3rd-party engineering grade tire models

    Only the rendering engine is carried over, and even then it appears to be extremely different. Sounds like it’s really environment mapping and AO and doesn’t seem to have much if anything in the way of real time lighting. It’s an engineering tool that happens to share some aspects of the same rendering engine and doesn’t really lend any credibility to RF2 itself.


    1. And still. All the places I’ve visited where they have driving simulators for proffesionals have used rFactor and not rF Pro!


      1. Maybe because ISI has over 20 years of experience with racing simulation. That company is in a league of its own, that’s for sure.


      2. Not a single person here has a clue about rfactor va rfactor pro. Rf pro the data is plugged in by the teams and the engine and graphics are done by isi. The data and physics have no spill over to rfactor or rfactor2 on the consumer level.

        There is no correlation between the two other then isi made the engine and graphics.


      1. Looks like I got confused by the NVH-specific usage. I would still argue the ‘lot more code’ aspect, especially outside of the renderer. Frankly, there aren’t a lot of direct points of comparison provided by the rfpro website.

        Race teams using rfactor specifically is a lot more impressive statement to me than mentions of further rfpro adoption.


      2. Hang on, aren’t pasejka curves supposed to be ‘inaccurate’ now? Afaik, that’s not what rf2 uses any more.

        So either that’s complete nonsense and pacejka curves are still considered accurate, or rfpro comes with an older model simply because they expect it to be replaced by an external model.

        Also, I believe rfpro runs the suspension simulation at a higher frequency. The ‘road mesh’ (more like points in this case) sounds entirely different in terms of detail and frequency, too.


      3. Pacejka MF got updated a lot over the years. rFPro comes with the latest one by default.
        rF2 of course doesn’t use Pacejka, but it still shares a lot of code with rFPro
        And yes its physics runs at a higher frequency, but it still shares the same default base code. Of course it’s all modular and you can replace the default model.


      4. That’s an interesting article.

        Also, I’ve read some things that support your statement about pacejka. A relatively unproven physical model in something like rfpro would be much less useful than a proven empirical model. They still have to be fit to an empirical curve to some degree anyways to be useful. I would argue the same applies to some games with their specific brush models. I don’t really see the benefit of handling low speeds with the same model when the end result is going to be considerably slower to solve and inconsistent anyways.

        If rf2 is indeed primarily based on rfpro in the critical areas, then that would explain why there isn’t much in the way of direct comparison on the rfpro website.


  4. I’ve spent a lot of time racing with & against Pumbaa. He’s a solid guy and a passionate fan of racing sims. Definitely no troll.

    If he happens to read this I want him to know I’m still super annoyed that he beat me to the LMP2 class championship in our league four years ago, but at least I won Sebring. =P


  5. A mod that lacks complete official data from the actual car is more popular than the car that was created with said data straight from the manufacturer? Lol says a lot about the so-called “sim racing community”. 90 percent is just a bunch of damn gamer kids who doesn’t give rat’s ass about realism. This is also why a piece of trash “simulator” like Assetto Corsa can be so popular.

    Ah, the cluelessness.


    1. Doesn’t rf2’s need updating? Because is older specs.

      Virtual Simulazioni’s mod team aren’t dumb. And most likely they have more in depth access to data than normal people about this car and possibly others from their rooster. Is not like this car is a hidden top secret project, nor is a car from an important manufacturer who can’t share their whole F1 data.

      This is a car accessible plenty of racing drivers and teams. So don’t treat it like only game developers can have all the access to data and measurements about this car.


      1. rF2 has both recent versions of the FR3.5, the old car was launch content I think and the current one was added fairly recently and as far as I know is used in the most recent demo. So actually you don’t even need to buy rF2 to try it.


      2. Yes rf2 apparently also uses the 2014 spec:

        Btw, can you objectively say that VS didn’t get all the data (same data as rf2) to make this car? How can you say things such as “A mod that lacks complete official data from the actual car”? It would be cool if once in a while you could provide evidence for the things you say, like in the case where you are blatantly accusing VS for not using the correct data and amount of data for this car mod they reproduced.


  6. I’m also waiting form GSCE updates, I haven’t picked up the game in a long time. Everyone with their tastes and interests. I have sitting there a “complete sim” in my steam library, yet I spend many hours driving/racing in another sim (AC). The world must be upside down..

    Maybe not everyone is looking for those “missing” features in AC. Why are some people trying to impose their standards into others of what a sim racing game should be?..But maybe those missing features from other games, also have the ability to enjoy and appreciate what exists so far. Why isn’t the whole sim racing community playing those “mega complete sims”? Shouldn’t that equal the best game/sim ever to exist? So why are many people playing “less complete” sims? “Completeness” is in the eye of the beholder. Is about what you’re interested in and how you enjoy the things that now exist.

    All that plethora of features from gsce/rf2/pcars, are just marketing stuff. Many people don’t do much differently of what they’d do in AC. They only miss something because it isn’t there now.
    Rain – day and night simulation… people just use it to showcase the game in youtube videos. They mostly race in day and dry conditions, but is good for marketing and fanboyism to say “my game” has this and “yours” doesn’t.. “ha ha!” :p


    1. (continuing my post)

      But I understand why people are asking for these things in AC. Because they see more potential for such features to be used more by the playing community and to attract more people to the game.
      So at the end of the day, I think Kunos could try to please both the casual and hardcore users of AC, because you can’t have an ongoing active game with just one type of players. They have done so so far, but the advanced sim players are still looking for other type features they deem as important, so I think is not a lost cause to bring those things in AC, some of those were mentioned in the screenshot from this article.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “But I understand why people are asking for these things in AC. Because they see more potential for such features to be used more by the playing community and to attract more people to the game.”

        Nailed it, my man.


  7. “astronomical costs for the sim”, maybe a little hyperbolic. 40 bucks for the game and a dollar a month if you don’t do the the lifetime online subscription. Free content, no dlc. Astronomical, lol.


      1. Which is quite ridiculous considering what you actually get for that price.

        rFactor 2 is more of a driving tool than a game, so of course the price will be higher. It features some pretty innovative technology that other racing sims doesn’t offer (Real Road, the incredible tire model, etc.). Real life teams pay big bucks to use ISI’s technology too, so the price of rF2 isn’t steep at all considering.


  8. Because most people do not like the RF2 graphics and it’s very unoptimized in that department. The big hook with AC and Project Cars is the graphics. Without that people assume it’s not “state of the art”.


    1. Yes, I suppose that is part of it.

      In my case, my entire initial MP subscription ran out before they got the rendering engine into a reasonably consistent state. It wasn’t a question of ‘game doesn’t look good’, it was a problem of highly inconsistent input latency due to inconsistent frame output.

      Not that long ago, they finally resolved some critical issues with their shaders and can now claim to present a reasonably consistent driving experience. Rf2 was in a very strong state of flux, yet few avid rf2 supporters care to mention that serious and readily apparent problems existed and still exist. It’s going to take a while to bring back some of the people that already explored rf2 and got tired of waiting.

      It’s a good simulator, but it’s certainly not a polished product. The majority of it’s strengths are due to a ‘legacy’ codebase containing thousands of man hours of effort.


    2. People don’t like rf2 because it’s not much better than rfacor1 and the real road is very exaggerated. Let alone ugly graphics


  9. “can’t race more than 10 laps in SP” has been fixed since AC 1.0 release, the only time you’re limited to 10 laps is with modded cars/tracks that the modder didn’t bother to set the AI fuel usage. (why are these lists compiled by people who don’t want to use the feature enough to check if it exists?)

    Calling either list ‘critical’ does set off my troll sensors a bit, the hack that lets someone drive your jeep by cellphone is a critical bug, having trouble picking your skin online isn’t.


  10. so i assume someone said the FR 3.5 actually came out a year and a half ago for rF2, and empty box did a dedicated video about the car?


  11. I prefer the FR 3.5 in Rfactor 2. In RF2, it actually has some mechanical grip at low speeds while in AC the front end feels like it’s rolling on pudding and marshmallows until down force comes into play.


    1. Are you sure is not just too low ffb% or low asphalt temps? Using something like 80-85% gain for wheels like G27, I don’t know how should be on fanatec or thrustmaster, but around that should be fine too. And if G27, use min.force% 15, not for wheels from other brands.


      1. I’m on a Fanatec GT3rsv2 and got it dialed in pretty well. My wheel requires between 8-9% on Min Force and have tried less and more and the gain in options is 100% and FFB in per car setting is 105% and with this it’s just below clipping except for curbs. I have the track set to 97% grip and tried different ambient and track temps.


    2. “AC the front end feels like it’s rolling on pudding and marshmallows until down force comes into play.”

      That’s how an open wheel car drives.


    3. Interesting that you do mention that.

      I did not try the FR3.5 yet, but this strange low grip “pudding-ish” feeling of the front axle is apparent on all high downforce cars in AC. It seems most pronounced in the Lotus T98 and the Sauber C9, and a reason, that I do not really drive these much.
      I wonder, if that may be a mere force feedback issue, and the performace of the cars actually correct, or vice versa?
      My thought was, that maybe the build up of the downforce is exagereted by the FFB engine, to make you feel the downforce as it builds up


      1. As far as I know it’s done linearly, unlike for example iRacing which amplifies the weak forces by default. So in comparison to them, the build up of downforce is natural, but to fit it in without clipping, weak forces end up much smaller.


  12. Simple, really. The FR3.5 in rF2 is shitty; in AC it’s a slice of heaven. (You don’t think just because two different devs modeled the same car that they *feel* the same, do you?)


    1. The FR3.5 in rF2 is far from shitty. I can’t speak to the AC model; I haven’t booted up AC in months, since I really can’t stand the interface and it’s still the worst AI out of every sim out there according to every available source. Since I don’t race online there’s not much point in running a sim with no adequate AI. They all feel great when hot-lapping.

      But the FR3.5 feels just fine in rF2, in either case. Not shitty by any means.


      1. Well then I recommend to try out for yourself some AI race since v1.2 release. Who are your available sources? hexagramme, associat0r? Then you’re always going to hear bad things about AC coming from them. Maybe your source is from someone else, and think from where your source’s source came from, probably from hex and ass.

        So just try it out by yourself. From my source what you can hear is that the AI still has some problems with hitting certain cars in certain places of the track, but the overall race craft is improved. So just try out some custom races, or from special events.


      2. You are a bigger fucking retard than you seem if you cannot form your own opinion and rely on James, Ass-ociator and Hexagram for your info.


    2. What a load of shit to let out.

      With the fucked up aerodynamics in AC the FR.3.5, no matter how well modded, will never feel like a slice of heaven. It’ll always be let down by the crappy Kunos physics engine, just like any other downforce dependent car.


      1. Can you show evidence of “fucked up aerodynamics”? And ass/hex, pls don’t quote me opinions of people with biased comments, but rather show some data evidence. Otherwise refrain from your fanaticism and bias.


      2. Considering the devs have said the aero physics could fly an air plane I dont call that broken or fucked up.

        Forgot to login again James hex ass


  13. Just a side note as I have some feedback on PRC itself.

    Can you start using “Read More” tags in your posts?

    Your content is interesting to read but when navigating the blog on mobile there is a lot of scrolling to be done when finding articles and whatnot as you display the full text on the index page.


    1. yeah incomplete website, is only good for hotlapping. Other sim racing websites are so much more complete, what were the PRC designers thinking, this is not 1996 any more.


  14. for me it’s simple, I absolutely suck at the RF2 version and always end up rage-quitting after a few minutes the few times I’ve tried it, whereas I find the AC version controllable and an absolute dream


      1. Another link to the MAKcorp post… You guys really don’t have a lot of resources for backing up the less readily observable claims against AC in terms of simulation accuracy. Find something new.


      2. holy fuck what is this autism I am reading? are you seriously trying to say AC is dumbed down because some faggot can play it easier on his controller than he can on rf2? whats next ass and hex telling me mario kart is more of a sim because the emulator he runs doesnt work with a keyboard and AC does? which remember these are the people who know it all about the sims using a fucking keyboard to race on AC


    1. Rfactor2 should have been beta still when it went gold. For a site that loves to freak about incomplete sims rfactor2 wasn’t even close to gold when it was gold out.


  15. Thank you for posting that video from Gamermuscle, it shows how great the AI really is and how much fun and rewarding driving/racing in Assetto Corsa is.
    I had missed that video, so thank you again for reminding me and all other on how great that mod is in Assetto Corsa.
    Got to go now, launch my favorite SIM and enjoy my broken game.


      1. Exactly. I am by no means a very fast driver but just like the AI in Pcars, the AI are too slow to give me much of a challenge at 100%. The AI slider needs to be able to be taken up to 110% or higher for the very fastest guys.


  16. I really don’t understand why so many rf2 lovers are so delighted and aroused in the comment section, when this article literally calls FR3.5 “trash” in the title, a car that rf2 demo uses to show people in the world how the sim feels like.

    It seems to me that many people are so easily satisfied that as long as there’s someone who tells them what other people are playing is inferior to what they are, they will be over the moon.

    I’m no rf2 lover or hater, but at least I won’t call FR3.5 “trash”.


    1. Because is mind boggling how people who don’t care for a game and think that game is shit, will day after day on numerous discussion boards will keep saying shit without any factual evidence.

      A normal person won’t show any interest in a game if they don’t like it, won’t post and talk about it all day.

      Which clearly shows ass and hex like AC very much but hide it behind a mask, they fear AC’s current success and future potential, so they want to bring it down. They see AC as the only other sim truly to stand competition against rf2. That’s why they don’t say shit about pcars, raceroom, gsce, iracing.. and only say shit against AC, because they fear it. So they will try their best to take it down, they are fearing the potential of AC and what it represents/does nowadays.

      They don’t see other sims as true competition to rf2, only AC. That’s why they are constantly attacking Assetto Corsa, they feel very threatened.

      Liked by 1 person

Ratio of vowels to consonants will be monitored. Post at your own discretion.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s