What Virtua Simulazioni struggled with when creating the Formula Renault mod

Buried deep within the Assetto Corsa forums, in a thread entirely unrelated to the Formula Renault mod, is an intriguing post by misterbeam detailing the shortcomings of Assetto Corsa that directly related to how their most recent mod turned out.

formula_renault_35_render6Released about a week (or so) ago, the 2014 Formula Renault 3.5 for Assetto Corsa received fantastic reviews and revitalized the greater Assetto Corsa community’s interest in amateur open wheel racing, even though the car was almost ignored when featured in a rival racing sim. Traditionally, the loudest criticisms of Assetto Corsa come from a handful of individuals masquerading under alternate accounts on a handful of message boards, and while we here at PRC.net have done our best to legitimize some of the complaints with our own videos, it has always been subject to scrutiny due to certain names being associated with it.

Virtua Simulazioni staff member misterbeam, as well as forum member Avoletta, have broken down as modders, what Assetto Corsa lacks when building an Open Wheel race car within the sim.

misterbeamKnowing how third party add-ons are intended, by Kunos, to carry Assetto Corsa into the future, its very interesting to see modders run into engine limitations so early into the game’s lifespan.

Advertisements

49 thoughts on “What Virtua Simulazioni struggled with when creating the Formula Renault mod

    1. So can anyone comment on how well Nkp handled these issues, since that sim had the KS2 as official content and is roughly comparable with the Exos S1?

      Like

      1. Netkar Pro has the same issues. It’s the most overrated game together with Live for Speed. It’s time to stop praising those them.

        Like

      2. The trolling is real around here. People can post anything they want, whether true or not, and without providing evidence. Of course they are free to post, but is clear their intention. They are now afraid of virtualr and bsimracing because those websites will filter these flamebaits and bs posts. Some people are really toxic, but we will laugh better in the end.

        Like

  1. I think I’ve worked you guys out.

    You really don’t care about these things, you just post whatever will start the most shit, right? That’s why you attacked PCARS so much, now that people are losing interest you’ve moved onto AC.

    That’s quite amazing. I actually enjoy these articles, they’re hilarious.

    Like

    1. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. The thing is that most of PRC’s articles are built around discussing, frankly, shortcomings in games. When a new one pops up, or new evidence pops up, they address it.

      Is it clickbait? More or less. Is it intended to stir up shit? It’s not clear what anyone’s intentions are, but it inevitably will stir up shit.

      But frankly, it’s also what journalism is supposed to be, so I really can’t hate them for it.

      “Assetto Corsa is working as intended” is a Dog Bites Man story. No reason to report it, there wouldn’t be any interest.

      “The AI in the Nissan GT-R Nismo, a DLC from Kunos Simulazioni themselves, can’t figure out how to downshift from 5th to 2nd without blowing the transmission, and then when it has done so it parks on the racing line” is a Man Bites Dog story. It’s unexpected and a furthermore problem, and I would want to hear that reported, rather than having it ignored.

      But the people who want that information pointed out are kind of assholes (Associat0r and Hexagramme0) and seem as if they have a personal vendetta against Assetto Corsa, so the information seems illegitimate to people for some reason.

      Like

      1. A Man Bites Dog story told in a way that tries to convince everybody that All Men Bite Dogs is a different one.

        Are there problems with AI, specifically the Nissan GT-R Nismo? I’m pretty sure there are. Does everybody have problems? Maybe not, or at least maybe not at the moment. At least this inside simracing video doesn’t show much wrong:

        People may have no issue playing the game, so they defend it. Then at PRC these people are called shills, Stockholm syndrome, etc. Why can’t these people say that comments from those AC haters are illegitimate in return?

        Still this post is a good one. It must have taken some serious effort to dig out negative things to say about AC in a thread entirely unrelated to the mod itself, buried deep down in the forum. Nice work.

        Like

    2. There is a protection Cartel built around Kunos pretending everything Assetto Cora is all perfect and the best physics.
      I’m glad we have sites like this providing deeper technical insights into what’s actually going on.

      Like

      1. I think the Cartel is actually ass and hex gang. You’re not worthy to carry the FBI name.

        So far I haven’t seen any deep technical insights, no data analysis, no nothing. Just reports from AC modders and other knowledgeable people. If what they say is right, then for sure Kunos will probably want to correct it and keep evolving the game.

        But what’s actually toxic in the sim racing community, is people who like to shit on other than their preferred sims. Why? This is easily spotted when people go to many forums and talk about the same problems instead of going to the official forums where they can inform the devs. But instead you (ass and hex gang) are just spreading the less good things, never keeping an unbiased comment by also saying the good. If the game is all bad, then what you’re trying to do is make people not play AC and not buy it, and instead but their preferred game. That’s the oldest trick of marketing, which is still in use today, especially in politics and elections.

        And many times forgetting that their preferred game also has problems. What’s worse than having problems? People who don’t recognize their problems and only point fingers at others problems. That’s really toxic and unethical.

        Like

      2. Tell that to the clueless media and so called sim community who have been shitting on rF2 all these years and pushing AC down our throats.

        Like

      3. I think you switched names there, did you really mean AC or you were talking about some other game recently released that had aggressive marketing from its company and 80.000 people, and then the community reviewed it with mixed opinions. That one game that was marketed to be the end of all other simracing games, that was even meant to remove people from rf2 and iracing..
        You are good with twisting what happened hex, but no one falls for your bs. People are now more immune, you need to up your tactics to shill more for rf2.

        Like

    3. No AC definitely deserves all the shit it gets these days.

      It has been protected for far too long now. All them GFX hoes masturbating all over its glossy graphics, exotic cars, drag strips and slick presentation, all the while forgetting that its simulation value is near zero due to the severe physics engine limitations.

      Like

    4. It looks like Assetto Corsa has no simulation value after all. It’s right up there with Forza.

      “I think the meaning of what I said is being misrepresented and misunderstood. When I said I don’t really feel the physics in AC to be of simulation value, I was comparing it to the way a racing driver and racing team and even vehicle manufacturers can use rF1 and rF2’s physics to develop their cars and their drivers in a way that provides accurate data which they can rely on to use at races.

      To give you an example. All our race team clients and even our series clients, they don’t only use rFactor for track familiarization. They also use it to test setup data before they go to an event, they use it to test potential new part data, by developing new brakes or new engine performances and testing it in the game before they actually commit to building it in real life. rF1 and rF2 provide far higher accuracy for those things than any other simulation on the market. When it comes to AC, their game is marketed for a set audience which covers not only the Simulation side, but the Semi-Arcade side. When I drive rF1 or rF2, I’m always in a serious state of mind, I can’t just go out on the track and run a few laps. It is too simulation based and I treat it as such. I work on my setups, I push to find every tenth I can throughout a lap. I analyze too much. When I play AC, I can easily go in, pick a car and track, chill back and drive using my Xbox360 controller and not give a care. The physics seem very much like Forza Motorsport 5, a console game physics HOWEVER, Kunos has done a great job to mix the two styles of physics to provide more sense of simulation for the simulation fans, but cut down to the wire, rFactor 2’s physics engine is by far the most simulation based physics engine using real life aero and physical data that no other title has come close to,”

      Like

      1. “rF2 is worse simcade than gran turismo 2 and toca”.

        Will you believe it? Of course not, especially because I didn’t provide any data analysis. Where is your data analysis to classify AC as simcade and worse than forza 5? Oh yea I forgot.. everyone now is anonymous in PRC and there is no filtering, which means people can fully attack other games without presenting clear and valid analyzed evidence.

        Just writing some statements doesn’t mean much at all, you need to give provable analysis of your statements, and not just state them. That’s why whenever you call AC simcade and whatnot, it goes ignore because is not true. But could it be true? Then give us some data analysis to support your statements.

        Like

    1. Numbers are fudged for all games to some extent, but this article displayed the exact issues the team ran into when making the 2014 FR 3.5. Like, the whole point was screenshotting those two posts to say “this is what problems modders are running into at the moment.”

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Two posts from Associat0r, a guy who plays sims at 30fps with a keyboard, both liked only by his buddy hexagramme. This is too perfect.

      Like

  2. Worth noting that “very stiff cars” are a problem for every modern sim, the gold standard in that regard is actually LFS, which simulates springs at 2000Hz – RF and RF2 are 400Hz, PCars is 600Hz, I’ve heard rumours that AC runs at 333Hz but can’t say for sure.

    I haven’t looked at the FR3.5 in either game cause it’s not my sort of thing, but if one game has an issue, you can bet the other one has the same issue. Of course official RF2 devs aren’t going to announce “we had to fudge the FR3.5 because our engine’s inadequate in the following ways” whereas 3rd party modders will happily say what they can’t get done.

    Like

    1. If rFactor 2 had the same problem, would that mean that it isn’t a problem for Assetto Corsa as well, and that further the article therefor has no merit?

      There comes a point where being fair-minded and even-handed crosses over into pure speculation for the point of what boils down to political correctness and nothing more. ISI didn’t say they had a problem with the FR3.5 — but they very well may have fudged it. Many games do. We just don’t know because they haven’t explained it, and frankly the state of rFactor 2 modding is less than ideal.

      But since there’s no evidence of that other than raw speculation, it’s not fair to say “all modern sims have this problem.” You’ll notice James is quick to do so, though, when there’s evidence of problems that exist in all modern sims (for example, his post several days ago entitled “A Commentary on the Future of Racing Sims – Revisited”).

      Like

      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiff_equation#General_theory_2
        It’s not speculation, it’s mathematical theory – the most you can do with a stiff problem is reduce the timestep, and since sims need to run in realtime, the most you can reduce the timestep is dictated by the hardware you want it to run on, and the amount of calculations the game does for each physics step.

        The more stable methods discussed in that article (implicit Euler in particular) are more difficult to use in sims because you either need the symbolic counterpart of the differential equation for implicit use, or run some sort of approximation method to get the value at the next timestep – which, on balance, costs more runtime than just using a smaller timestep on a basic method.

        You can of course detect instability and limit it (for example the trapezoidal method mentioned in the WP article damps out instabilities) but it’s an accuracy tradeoff, you’re still not simulating it correctly, but you don’t get unbounded behaviours.

        Like

      2. Sorry, didn’t relate back to the article as much as I wanted – it’s a fair complaint, but it’s not “points for RF2 over AC” like some people want it to be. It’s just a thing devs have to make value-calls on, they know the hardware they’re aiming for, and the vehicles they want to simulate. You can find cut corners on any product, even in things that seem reasonable; NR2003 needs a workaround for 1/2 mile or smaller tracks (called Butter’s rule for some obscure reason) cause it didn’t ship with any.

        Like

      3. ISI aren’t in the habit of fudging stuff. They wouldn’t be where they are today if they had cut corners, like certain other devs so.

        Like

      4. “ISI aren’t in the habit of fudging stuff. They wouldn’t be where they are today if they had cut corners, like certain other devs so.”

        Except for when the DW12 IndyCar was broken and fudged to absolute shit for more than a year.

        Like

    2. There is much more than the simple brute force buzzword physics rate and no, LFS is very far from the gold standard regarding physics, please stop parroting that.
      It also depends on the type of physics solver algorithm you use. With the proper algorithms you can get away with lower rates while maintaining stability with stiff suspensions. It’s also worth noting that different parts of physics engines operate at different rates.

      ISI solved the problem of stiff cars more than a decade ago http://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?threads/game-stock-car.22692/page-7#post-436296

      Like

      1. The kerb and SAT bugs were fixed in 1.2. They were the only legitimate complaints you had and they’ve been fixed, why are you pretending like they are still there, Ass?

        Like

      2. “”AC physics feel incomplete when compared to GSCE or RF2.

        FFB on AC gives way too much informations, that’s why the majority think “it feels better” or even worse “it has better physics”.

        When you enter real data to RF2, it works like real life to some extent, it’s not the case for AC, you always have to use workarounds and substitute models :)””

        “”That is perfectly understandable, I’m just trying to make a bit of justice when people says that rF engine is dated, or inferior, etc without any solid facts other than their “feel”. But as gamers, we play whatever we enjoy the most, that’s clear.””

        “”Feel is something that can be fooled easily, numbers not so much 😀 “”

        “”GSCE is totally ready with default settings.

        Also can’t be that crap when almost all racing teams use ISI sims to test… “”

        “”Only top factory teams use rFactor Pro and plug in their own physics simulations. The majority of the race teams use stock rFactor 1 / rFactor 2 physics.””

        “”Yep, there are many racing teams using stock rF (and GSC). I’d say that rF Pro is for teams who can invest a lot of money on the simulation area (such as F1 teams).””

        “”Ofcourse, because most of your mods are within kunos stiffness limits … try to do some modern f1 with ULTRA stiff heave springs (400 N/mm +) and come back to me, i will show you a nice workaround 🙂

        And i will say it honestly, tyre model is weak and is very limited … and you used P4/5 tyres on your oreca, why havent you used your real life data then ?

        The first workaround any modder in AC meets in BrakingTorque : you always have to reduce it because there is no thermal simulation that changesfriction coefficient and so on … “”

        Like

  3. A lot of these are issues across the board, remember the article about broken iRacing stock car setups mentions that iRacing can’t do strong enough shocks for a stock car either.

    One of the big reasons that AC mods are much more common than rF2 is that while AC tires may be more difficult than rF1, rF2 is another league more difficult for modders to figure out. GSC’s physics guy has written a fair bit about how he prefers rF1’s because he actually knows what results he’s going to get. When it comes to iRacing they can’t even figure out their own tire model.

    Like

  4. “what Assetto Corsa lacks when building an Open Wheel race car within the sim.”

    you missed the word “modern” in that sentence. Which is rather relevant in misterbeam’s discussion.

    Like

  5. This place has basically become an echo box for James to samefag his articles and hexociator to post links to forum comments as facts.

    Stefano knows there are issues with high df cars corner too fast, but right now we have sims loaded with cars doing the same. Something about not being able to die and simulate per weekend tires which are not the same as the virtual tires in every sim creates this.

    Besides the stiffness issue most seem to agree the car is better and more fun than rf2.

    Like

  6. I trust ISI because real F1 teams trusts them in doing their simulators.

    So they know their stuff.

    Ferrari changed to ISI rFPro in October 2014,
    In March 2015 Vettel won the race in Sepang.

    Nothing else needs to be said abt who made better sim.

    Like

The comment box is not a toy.

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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