Bathurst from pCars now available in rFactor 2, and ISI made it happen

Bit of a quick story to start the weekend, and how it’ll sit with people, I have no idea. A couple days ago, Mount Panorama was released as a free add-on track for rFactor 2 through the game’s official website, though the third party content label indicated the track had been created someone other than ISI. It’s not uncommon for other devs to inject tracks into rFactor 2; Reiza Studios allowed ISI to put their modern version of Interlagos designed for Game Stock Car Extreme into rFactor 2, but most remained tight lipped about where this track had come from.

Regardless of who had a hand in putting the iconic Australian circuit together, it’s a very good version of Bathurst, and those with rFactor 2 currently installed shouldn’t hesitate to download it.

Untitled-2The track was launched to overwhelmingly positive feedback, though YouTube user Peter Read commented that the track may have possibly been yanked from Project CARS.

Untitled-4Had it been illegally ripped from Project CARS and prettied up for ISI under the guise of scratch-built creation from a reputable mod team, I’m sure shit would have hit the fan fairly quickly. While I myself have no problem pirating games or downloading mods containing an abundance of stolen content, a large portion of the sim community prefers to take the moral high ground and stay away from content containing elements ripped from other creations. Some sites like F1-Classic encourage sharing these types of add-ons, whereas sites like RaceDepartment do not.

Anyways, after making comparisons and seeing that “hey, it IS pretty damn close to the pCars version”, ISI staff members Luc Van Camp and Tim Wheatley confirmed the track model was indeed by Slightly Mad Studios, reworked extensively to operate in the rFactor 2 environment.

777Given that Kunos received a lot of flak for including a non-laser scanned third party version of Zandvoort in the most recent Assetto Corsa update, I’m curious to see how sim racers react to this. Despite how destructive Project CARS fanboys have been since the game’s launch this spring and the reputation Project CARS has gained just for existing and being incredibly underwhelming, it’s definitely neat to see competing developers working together behind the scenes for the good of the community.

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Bathurst from pCars now available in rFactor 2, and ISI made it happen

      1. A fair few tracks are from older titles, Oulton Park being one, but they have been extensively updated, lots of news about these types of tracks on ISI but no actual d/load links. I think if people started posting links, they would probably be removed.

        Like

    1. Well, they take the only reasonable stance which is “license holder can request it be taken down”, there’s no way to guess whether every mod that uses another one’s files is allowed use or not unless it’s blatantly from a few sources that never allow it.

      Like

  1. Most of this stuff should come with an open source style license, IMO.

    Here’s my track, here’s my car. Have fun with it. Pack it into your mod. Put it up for downloads. Use it for your league. Improve it if you can, just mention me in your credits.

    The simracing community would be instantly 100x less toxic if people would approach it this way.

    Of course I know it’ll never happen.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. “Luc Van Camp and Tim Wheatley confirmed the track model was indeed by Slightly Mad Studios”

    Except for the bit in their posts where noone actually properly confirmed that. XD

    The bit I’m interested in is this. I saw many posts on the news articles along the lines of “This is cool and drives nice, but sorry I only drive laser scanned tracks, I’ll stick with iRacing/PCars for their proper accuracy”. Y’know, along the lines of its good, but not as good as others.

    We then get the assumption that it is from PCars. Say it really is, what does the “dramatically increased the road mesh density” mean in terms of the laser scan versions? Like with the Zandvoort AC thing, I’m of the opinion that noone can tell in practice. It’s just a feel good, placebo type thing. “Well it’s laser scanned, it has to be accurate”, ignoring the shots where we can see the basic density of the mesh for major bumps and the road noise creation for the teeny bumps that are always changing on a real track.
    Because it didn’t have that laser scanned tag on it, it was already confirmed in their heads as being not good enough, regardless of the actual drive.

    Silverstone in AC and rF2, I can’t tell the difference in the surface model at all. Great versions of the FR3.5 in both as well, even playing field.

    Either way, it’s a nice version of Bathurst, in another sim. For sure I’m going to do a mockup V8 supercar race with the Stockcars when they come out, haha.

    Like

    1. AFAIK the only laser-scanned tracks in pcars are some of the UK ones. They are also the suggested tracks for ‘testing’ (fixing) FFB.

      I think you can tell the difference in pcars specifically between scanned and non-scanned, though I think that’s due to unnaturally smooth meshes for most of the regular tracks (aside from the jumps..).

      That’s one reason I really want to test a non-scanned pcars track in rf or ac.

      Like

      1. Yeah, the only laser-scanned tracks in PCars are the four Motor Sport Vision tracks (Brands Hatch, Cadwell Park, Outlton Park, and Snetterton). Aside from those, every real world track that I tried in PCars was ridiculously inaccurate – and that’s not simply in regards to a lack of road mesh irregularities, but, on a macro scale, in regards to general geometry, elevation, camber etc.).

        In regards to the MSV tracks, I was under the impression that any developer that obtained licenses for tracks operating under that group had laser-scanned data included as part of the license (as in, MSV provided that data). However, the fact that Kunos recently made a dev trip for their own laser-scanning session seems to nullify such a thought, though, perhaps, for whatever reason, Kunos just wanted to aquire their own data set. In any case, it does seem, at least to my knowledge, that all the most recent appearances of these tracks in modern sims, during their existence under the MSV group, have seen them arrive only in laser-scanned form.

        Like

  3. I have the AC version of Nords in rF2 ( Private ) and I can say that particular track feels extremely “alive” in rF2 compared to v2.01.
    But I agree ISI Silverstone is a very accurate representation, without laser scanning, they use some sort of cloud point data.
    I always find it funny, the likes of iRacing having Laser scanned Bathurst and Lime Rock, but both were resurfaced not long after they scanned them, Actually ISI Lime Rock is more accurate than iRacings.
    TBH I don’t care if a track is laser scanned, or 100% accurate as long as its a reasonable representation of its real life counterpart, after all its the same chicanes and apexes for everyone once we are racing. I even enjoy a lot of fantasy tracks.. Better than Tilkes modern F1 circuits.

    Like

    1. That’s the other side to laser scanning. It’s a snapshot of it at that moment, like you say.
      iRacings LRP is accurate of course, it’s just the older, bumpier surface compared to the LRP in rF2.
      It is a great technology, but it isn’t the end all in terms of accuracy. More to the point, I think some people get a bit sucked in by the laser scanned tag.

      The MotoGP guys at Misano this weekend, track resurfaced, little bit better grip, bumps changed in certain areas, pretty fast surface so far. Much better than the old glasstop.
      Silverstone was the last round a couple weeks ago, huge talk about how the bumps had changed since last year. Like whole bumps had walked their way around the track and relocated themselves. Some corners that were smooth were now very bumpy for the riders.
      And I do remember a few years back when they went to a track just after F1 had been there…and aaaall the riders talked about corrugations in the braking zones. Which again, changed over time and went away. Probably some hot weather would flatten it out, hah.

      I raced on Toban in rF2 yonks ago, hadn’t driven it before and man it was a hoot. It was like I was playing Wipeout 2097 or something.
      Tilke also designed Bilster Berg and Atlanta Motorsports Park too though…he’s got the chops for sure, just he gets asked to build tracks with certain “features”…

      Like

      1. Tilke can make good tracks, but only if he is allowed to. COTA is a good example, it’s a technical and exciting track and certainly not boring. Istanbul is another good track of his. Then you see shit like the new Hockenheim and don’t know what to think anymore ;(

        Like

  4. hahahaha … so PCars is being known only for being shit, yet it still has more players than AC or iR. Really neverending source of laugh is this blog.

    Like

    1. The game has a lot more content than AC and iRacing, so it’s a given that it has more players for longer. Plus it’s not as hardcore as a sim as AC, GSCE or iRacing so it doesn’t only attract the “racers”, but also the casual GT/Forza crowd.

      Like

    1. Wait he didn’t use the perfect ideal AI settings. Look at rf2 AI piling up because they can’t get past a car. After all, the same problems we can see in pcars and ac. But for the boys, rf2 is perfect and the standard… that’s great.

      inb4 comments below saying ac is unrealistic. Provide data analysis evidence before quoting mak corp and virtua simulazioni’s empty statements. Just because they have problems with stiff suspensions, it doesn’t make ac unrealistic.

      Just because rf2’s AI is bad at Bathurst doesn’t make it bad in overall. Go past your hate boys, and think with your heads not with your asses. rf2 ai is still good even with this bathurst example, ac is still a realistic sim even with some occasional problems.

      Like

      1. It’s very true that no AI is perfect.

        Was racing in GSCE with the v8’s earlier this week and the field was coming to a complete halt multiple times due to crashes, losing the rear end and kept hitting a wall on the inside of a specific turn.

        They actually lost control or barely kept it together pretty frequently and often stopped instead of navigating around slow traffic.

        It was still fun, but not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Many of the same problems as AC AI, because no one has actually solved these problems entirely.

        Like

  5. If it feels okay then I suppose it will be fine. I thought it felt kind of flat and featureless in pcars, so this will actually be a really interesting test.

    Like

  6. Hold up… Just read that comment.

    No point to arguing details like ‘is it pcars or shift’, as the pcars version is probably shift-based as well.
    Maybe he was just having a bit of a laugh.

    Either way, the fixes and ‘dramatically’ increased resolution are very, very interesting information. The nature of these ‘affiliations’ needs investigation. Sounds like more than simply licensing base meshes from the same sources at times.

    Like

    1. He is talking about a finer mash since rF2’s tire model probably needs many more individual contact patches than what would be possible with the pCars mesh. Could have something to do with their dynamic racing line as well (or both?).

      Like

      1. Yeah the dynamic line could very well be part of it.

        I suppose what I’m really looking for is a mesh comparison between scanned and non-scanned stock pcars tracks. I think in pcars case, the non-scanned tracks are contrastingly lower-detail (or the mesh displacement just isn’t scaled equally), contributing to the difficulties with FFB tuning and also why FFB clipping is more of a problem on their scanned tracks.

        People may begin pointing to pcars as an example of ‘look laser scanning makes a big difference’. At this point, I’m pretty sure that would be an invalid conclusion. As you know, it doesn’t really matter that much if the end mesh is fairly equal. Actually, I would argue that it’s easier to make an efficient, lower poly mesh that gives a comparable level of detail if you don’t start from a point cloud. Decimating meshes isn’t magic, you usually still have unnecessary poly in the end

        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