“Numbers Matching” has a Negative Connotation

assetto_corsa___mclaren_650s_gt3___zolder_by_maxoulepilote-d98hv3m

Lacking many features seen in rival modern racing sims, owners of Assetto Corsa have flooded a vast array of sim racing message boards defending Kunos Simulazioni’s lack of direction in the on-going development of the popular PC racing simulator, soon to see a release on next generation consoles. Armed with numerous official blog entries and developer forum posts which state Kunos are meticulously modeling the inner workings of each vehicle to ensure unprecedented realism, the Assetto Corsa diehards claim the main draw of the simulator is the accuracy of the official car roster; allowing for those who will most likely never afford a Ferrari the chance to experience both the strengths and weaknesses of a car they could previously only fantasize about.

However, experienced Assetto Corsa modders recently cracked into the newest addition to the game’s expanding library of official Downloadable Content, and discovered the claims made by both Kunos and fanboys alike in regards to accuracy may be little more than generic marketing babble. Dubbed Dream Pack #3, the $10 expansion pack launched with the inclusion of the Brands Hatch GP Circuit, as well as nine new cars – some of which are newer models of cars already existing in Assetto Corsa. While the game launched in 2013 with GT3 variants of Mclaren’s MP4-12C and Mercedes’ SLS AMG, the third expansion pack included the successors to the aforementioned vehicles with the McLaren 650s and Mercedes AMG.

Assetto-Corsa-Dream-Pack-3_2.jpg

Within a day or so, rumors quickly circulated of Kunos directly copying car physics values from the respective older car models, into the newer cars offered as DLC. This caused a slight uproar, as the sim racing community blasted the creators of the Sareni Camaro GT3 mod a few months prior for ripping suspension geometry values from the McLaren 12c GT3 created by Kunos. If Kunos had been doing the exact same thing, not only did it make a bunch of people look like hypocrites, it called into question the authenticity of the simulation and made some wonder if Kunos had resorted to quickly churning out content prior to the game’s release on the Playstation 4 and Xbox One. Given the game’s emphasis on authenticity and as much real data as possible used when replicating each car, this would be hard evidence that the ideology behind the development of Assetto Corsa had been lost to personal greed, and a publisher with a poor understanding of a product they’d chosen to support.

physics

Why does this matter? From the most basic standpoint, hardcore flight sims would be crucified by the armchair aviation guys for releasing an F-16 that performs identically to an F4 Phantom, so there’s no reason to not hold racing simulators to the same standard. If you want to dig deeper, as my boy ApexIsFree once said, refusing to ask more from the world around you can suspend your growth, and keep you in a perpetual state of childhood where quality is irrelevant. No, you’re not “entitled” for pushing developers to “get it right”; allowing them to settle into a rhythm of “just get it out there” is how we end up with less than satisfactory products, ones which dumb ourselves down and keep us in a child-like state. Striving for more instead of settling for less shows maturity.

Anyways, on with the show.

650S

Revealed at the massive Goodwood Festival of Speed event in 2014, the official press release states major changes have been made to McLaren’s flagship GT3 entry since the introduction of the McLaren 12c in 2011. The improvements claimed to have been made to the newest McLaren endurance racing entry are not just marketing babble to appease man-children queuing up for launch night in front of GameStop. McLaren have poured hundreds of thousands of man hours into the development of this car, and spent millions of dollars in Research & Development to ensure it can win races. Video games only need to sell X amount of copies, regardless of their quality, to be considered a success. McLaren needs to win a global competition. Marketing babble doesn’t cut it on this level, as the very exclusive group of customers will promptly call you on your shit if your product isn’t up to par.

A more in-depth list of changes can be found on the Road and Track Magazine website, again listing several improvements the car has made over it’s older, clumsier brother. While a 12c-to-650s upgrade kit is available due to the chassis being nearly identical, the quick shelf life of the 12c implies it’s not the option most teams should pursue.

McLaren Road and Track.jpg

From these two articles, we can make a definitive list of elements that have been changed from the 2011 McLaren MP4-12c GT3 entry, and improved in the 2014 McLaren 650s. In no particular order, these elements are:

  • Aerodynamics
  • Weight
  • Gearbox
  • Tires
  • Brakes
  • Suspension Geometry

I’m sure y’all know where this is going.

maxresdefault

An Assetto Corsa modder who wishes to remain anonymous has decrypted the official Kunos car data files for both the McLaren MP4-12c GT3, as well as the McLaren 650s, and sent them to us so we could compare for ourselves whether Kunos has faithfully replicated the differences between the two McLaren GT3 entries, or if they have simply copy and pasted physics from one car to another in an effort to push out more cars prior to the console release. Sim Racers will hope we indeed find subtle differences that indicate Kunos have replicated McLaren’s new car in an authentic manner.

But if you’re familiar with this site, you know that’s not going to happen. You can investigate the decrypted files for yourself by downloading them here, and if the Notepad format is a bit of a clusterfuck, copy and paste the contents of each INI file HERE for a traditional view of each document.

Brakes

We’re not off to a good start. The brake performance is identical on both cars, despite both McLaren and third-party Road & Track Magazine citing obvious upgrades to the brakes on the 650s.

Tires

The tires seem to fare a bit better, with the hard compound racing slicks – ideal for long online races in Assetto Corsa – receiving noticeable improvements on the 650S as described by both McLaren themselves, as well as Road & Track. Whether this is based on real data is up for each individual sim racer to decide, but considering attributes like “rolling resistance” are a lower value on the 650s, it’s safe to say there’s at least some authentic adjustments being made.

gearbox

The gearbox, something McLaren touted as a massive improvement in 2014’s 650s and was even praised by an independent review of the car on TopSpeed.com, is identical across both cars in Assetto Corsa aside from one thousandth of an inertia value. From what I understand, this value is the rotational inertia of the gearbox. Values that would improve the speed & quality of the gearbox to replicate the improvements McLaren have made are not replicated.

aero

The aerodynamics seem to have been adjusted to accurately portray the new rear wing and overall vastly different aerodynamic profile on the 650s compared to the 12c. A full point goes to Kunos on this one, as they might have these two cars as accurate as possible without looking at the actual FIA homologation documents. As not everyone has access to important FIA paperwork, we can’t check this, but we’re confident they’ve got it right here.

Weight.jpgBut now we’ve run into trouble. Despite both McLaren, as well as Road & Track boasting about the overall weight reduction improvements in the 650s, Kunos has copied not only the identical mass of the 12c over to the 650s, they’ve also used the exact inertia values as well. This value is subject to change depending on the GT3 series the car has been entered in, but it raises a personal red flag after reading of obvious weight reduction improvements – hence the sale of an upgrade kit with replacement body panels – would they really come out to the same exact overall mass?

EDIT #1: I would also like to draw attention to the inertia listed in the Car.INI file above. To add my own two cents into this mix and delete two or three paragraphs from the original version of this post, inertia is calculated in a very complex format, by adding the weight of all components of the vehicle into the mix. An article detailing the process can be read here, and in the end it also pokes holes in the identical inertia value for both McLaren GT3 cars we’re looking at. With McLaren claiming to have spent time refining the material and objects inside the cockpit, as well as re-desiging the roll cage, this value should be inherently different, as secondary objects inside the car are a completely different weight.

Now, before we get into analyzing the suspension components, it’s important to analyze the right part of the INI file. When combing through the file in question, we’re explicitly looking for the wishbone mounting points, named with the prefix WBCAR or WBTYRE, as these will definitely be subject to change even though the 650s shares the same chassis as the 12c. When McLaren discussed revised suspension geometry on the 650s GT3, this is what they are referring to. The WB values are the position of the mounting points, in meters, with the overall precision of 0.1 millimeters, along the standard three dimensional X/Y/Z axis. In short, rarely, if ever, will these be the same when comparing any two cars.

McLaren themselves have made it clear that these values are different, so there’s no reason for these values to be similar with merely one or two numbers adjusted.

wishboneAs we dive into the wishbone suspension portion of the document, we can see that the wheel hub mass is identical despite McLaren going through great lengths to design new wheels for the 650s. The 52mm wider front end track is also faithfully replicated, so I’m inclined to hand another point to Kunos.

However ,the wishbone mounting points are virtually identical to the 12c, save for a tenth of one value being changed for the top of the tire mounting position. This is the exact opposite of what McLaren, as well as Road & Track, have told us about the “completely revised” suspension in the 650s GT3. These values shouldn’t be anywhere near identical between the two cars, yet they are straight up copy & pasted. In terms of raw authenticity and simulation value, this definitely isn’t good.

assetto_corsa___mclaren_650s_gt3___zolder_by_maxoulepilote-d98hv4j

It is important to give credit where credit is due, and I can say that Kunos have made a genuine attempt to replicate some of the upgrades unique to the McLaren 650s GT3 in Assetto Corsa, enough to make the cars perform in a slightly different manner under ideal conditions. However, I will also say that the abundance of identical values when they outright shouldn’t be there gives skeptical users every reason to question the authenticity of the car’s overall behavior, and what Kunos is doing behind the scenes. While the aerodynamic profile and tire behavior have indeed received reasonable changes to accurately portray the 650s GT3, areas such as the gearbox, suspension, and brakes have been largely copied from the McLaren 12c.

But we aren’t done yet. As many people have sent in supplementary information to benefit this article, we’ve been advised to compare two other, very different cars – the Lamborghini Huracan GT3 entry, and the Audi R8 Plus. You know, the street car.

LamboAs we’ve demonstrated with the two McLaren GT3 cars, the chance of two nearly identical vehicles sharing equally identical wishbone mounting points in real life is slim to none. Now, in the case of McLaren, you can play devil’s advocate and say there isn’t much harm in using this shortcut as they simply may not have enough data to build an accurate rendition of the car. But the fact that this phenomenon shows up again when comparing the INI files of the street legal Audi R8 with Lamborghini’s latest GT3 participant is… not good for determining the mindset of Kunos Simulazioni in regards to the recent batch of DLC.

So let’s throw in one more for good measure, comparing the Mercedes SLS GT3, with the more recent Mercedes AMG GT3. In an article on TopGear.com, a website not affiliated in any way with Mercedes, the entry mentions that the new AMG GT3 is much wider than it’s predecessor, the SLS GT3. This means every single one of the wishbone mounting points for the new car will be different, as the overall dimensions of the car have changed.

wide chassis.jpg

Upon examining and comparing the decrypted INI files of both the SLS and the AMG, a majority of the values have simply been copied from the old car, over to the new one, with one or two digits adjusted every once in a while,

its finally over holy fuck these took far too long to make goddamnI can’t deny what’s been presented to me, and before our conclusion I must thank the three different readers who’ve helped contribute to this article in their own special way. Three sim racing community members who wish to stay anonymous have played an integral role in composing this article, from supplying the decrypted files to analyze, hunting for the articles on the real-world cars, and lastly for explaining specific elements of Assetto Corsa’s INI values to me in a way that I can convey to the readers of PRC.net without causing people’s heads to explode. You guys made this article possible, and for that I thank you – this is the vision I had of PRC.net when I first got into this shit.

I am saddened that Kunos have chosen this approach when crafting post-release DLC packages for Assetto Corsa. Many unbiased sim racers, myself included, were initially drawn to the sim due to what was advertised as unparalleled authenticity. It is frustrating to see this “authenticity” can so easily be demonstrated as sheer marketing lingo, and even more frustrating to see fellow sim racers parrot this lingo in arguments supporting the alleged realism of Assetto Corsa.

The cold hard numbers don’t lie. The most popular and most talked about PC racing sim in the past handful of years is no more realistic than the Gran Turismo or Forza titles owners claim it to be above.

Advertisements

166 thoughts on ““Numbers Matching” has a Negative Connotation

  1. dear God man. please stop fucking calling them “next gen”. that shit got stale when every trendy cunt on YouTube would make videos with the headline ” next gen”. we are in the now. they have been out for quiet some time. just say consoles. if someone thinks they are releasing for PS3, then let them die peacefully from their astrocytoma.

    Like

  2. I wonder what the excuses will be this time. It seems obvious to me that Kunos are in way over their heads with this game and have given up on making things as accurate as they can, likely in an effort to ensure the console release gets finished. This is simply unacceptable in a product that purports to be a simulation. Extremely disappointing.

    Like

  3. “Many unbiased sim racers, myself included”
    So unbiased that you haven’t played Assetto Corsa at all since the 1.4 update released 21 days ago (which improved many things), yet you’ve published seven AC hitpieces in that time, and have resorted to comparing it to Gran Turismo, Forza, and X-Motor Racing.

    When the 1.3.3 update released you played it for several hours and gave it a decently fair appraisal, despite numerous factual errors that went uncorrected. Now you’ve resorted to spending several minutes looking at .ini files that you don’t understand to craft a false narrative of lazy DLC “simcade” physics. All cars in simracing are copy-pasted and incomplete to some degree, as it is extremely rare to get all data from a manufacturer. rFactor 2’s DW12 was released as 1.0 and had numerous issues and bizarre behaviour due to incomplete data and copy-pasted values for a year.

    I don’t see how you are surprised that several cars with near-identical platforms have near-identical suspension geometry. The end result has near-identical characteristics anyway (scrub/camber/bump steer/dive), so in practice the difference is barely noticeable.

    From Aris:
    “Regarding some other “copy&paste” reports. We copy paste where we have to copy paste. We don’t take shortcuts. In AC there are now, dreampacks and upgrade cars included, 93 cars. Each one of them has been created with as much love and accuracy as we can, data permitting. If on all of those cars you’ve found a couple of cases of “suspected copy&paste” maybe first you should ask if maybe that is the case in reality too, if we’ve been forced to wait from the manufacturer because “reasons” we cannot talk about (like homologation still in progress), or if finding some identical numbers on a 3D coordinate suspension system gives also the same suspension geometry, bump steer, kinematics, and behavior, or not. Hint, it does not.”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “We don’t take shortcuts” well I suppose that’s true in a way; they don’t half ass stuff they just flat out don’t include essential features. No, wait, they half ass stuff too, as evidenced by this. The numbers should be different. “Near identical” is not “completely identifical.” So don’t give me that crap. If they have to wait on data what’s the point in releasing the cars in the first place? Why not just wait? I guess the answer is that it’s the Kunos way to leave things unfinished and we’re all supposed to pretend that’s ok and they’re the greatest developers ever and deserve no criticism. Give me a break man. I want to like this game but we’re too far along with this game for it to have the issues it does. It’s still in beta stage but they call it complete. I don’t think they know what the word “finished” means.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “If they have to wait on data what’s the point in releasing the cars in the first place? Why not just wait?”
        It took a year for the proper data for the rFactor 2 DW12 to make it not shit, and I’m still waiting for the same thing with their Stock Car (apparently 1.0 means “beta” to ISI). But it’s all still fun in the meantime.

        Like

      2. “The numbers should be different. “Near identical” is not “completely identifical.” So don’t give me that crap.”

        Then can you tell Kunos the different numbers they should put in the 650s gt3?

        Like

      3. Yeap, but they did actually say that publicly though. We are waiting on more data to do an update, that type of thing.
        It seems the response here is rather different from Kunos.

        So for instance, if they say “yes, waiting on more details from McLaren”, that would be fine for me.
        The Audi and Lambo really worries me…any further details would be good to see.

        Like

    2. Don’t bother posting facts – people just want to go for the jugular without much thought.

      Aris is spot on and all sims, even the mighty rF2, has fudged values as not every aspect of the vehicle can be sourced from the manufacturer.

      Like

      1. Well you should know by now James has selective memory, and writing another tabloid article slamming AC is much easier (and perhaps much more fun for him) than actually think about the reasons why these values are based on guesswork. The statement that they want the cars to be done in time for consoles is Majorrrr Disinformation, as inserting real values takes even less time than calculating them on laptimes or guesswork.
        They simply don’t have access to the cars and so, no access to the data.

        Like

      2. Fudged values are an easier pill to swallow than COPIED values.

        The former implies SOME effort was made to generate authentic behavior.

        The latter implies they just needed to get the car out there in some form.

        Now, this is fine in something like Forza or Grid Autosport, but not in a game that prides itself on realism.

        Like

      3. Why are you drawing a line between fudging and copying? They are the same thing. How is tweaking a value from a car based on the same platform worse than coming up with a value from thin air? Is copying always a sin in the name of “realism”? Are physics devs supposed to create all their cars from files with “0.0” in every value?

        Like

    3. 1.4 sucks, which, I bought DP3 and fired it up for around half a hour, couldn’t stand it and closed it. glad that someone converted brands hatch into rF2, which I had hours and hours of enjoyment with the track I bought in AC.

      Like

      1. put tyre skid to 200%. It improves your perception of the car, as at 100% you think you’re sliding more than what’s actually happening, and then maybe you constantly under drive the cars, or not properly as you’re trying to adapt to the aggressive tyre skid sound, instead of focusing on the car and ffb.

        Like

    4. Let me post a rebuke. But because of the everything goes mentality around here let me call you a dumbass.

      On to the rebuke.

      1. You claim the suspension parts on the 12c are identical to the 650. They are not. Not only is the track width changed but so are the location of every suspension mounting point. Because you did not do any research and as such you think similar numbers mean the same thing. In this case they don’t. In ac suspension mounting points are measured from the center of the tire. When your track widens it means suspension parts move as well. The tire moves and the suspension moves with it. In the case of 650 everything in the suspension was moved. Every single part.

      2. Same thing with your r8/gt3 comparison. Track width has changed. And more. Again, had you done any research you would have learned that R8 and huracan share the same platform. This information is free of charge available in wikipedia which I’m sure is a site you are very knowledgeable as of late… As for the weight it did not occur to you that the weight is not decided by McLaren or lamborghini. Cars have ballast in addition to their own raw weight.

      3. You seem to have blind faith in the claims of pr people of Mercedes yeat none in kunos. So just fyi a car manufacturer can claim to have changed every bit of suspension while the actual geometry may remain completely unchanged. How is that possible? You can change every part, redesign every a-arm and upright and change the structure that connects those bits to the chassis. The reason for such change is to make parts easier to maintain, make cheaper to make, make lighter, stronger etc…

      4. I don’t even know what do you expect to see when you compare something like the brakes.ini values or gearbox values. Only thing that is there is to change is brake bias and brake torque. And brake bias is adjustable anyways. As for brake torque it is probably one more value you don’t understand. It exists because people still need a limit for braking. This is because every kind brake of brake pedal in sim racing is configured by having a 0 and having a max value. When the cars in a sim have similar weight, grip and downforce these values are going to be similar. I’m sure that iracing for example have similar values for their gt3 cars for this parameter simply because how and what that value is supposed to do.

      As for the gearbox it is once again possible to make all kinds of changes to it without actually having measurable change to inertias or ratios.

      Also let’s assume the center of gravity was changed because of the new parts in the car. Let’s say the change was moving the cog 2 centimetres forward from 50-50. On a car that has wheelbase of 2.7 metres that 2cm means your cog moves less than 1%. Inertias are affected even less.

      Where are your facts? Had you posted images of the suspension parts of the real cars instead of press bullshit you might be taken little bit seriously but after reading this article it just seems facts were never important.

      Like

      1. Can you explain why on the Giulietta/500 the rear suspension it’s the same?

        Can you explain why on both virtual cars there is the same identical double wishbone, and in reality there is a multilink (Giulietta) and a torsion beam (500)??

        No, you can’t explain that.

        Like

      2. Maybe this answers your question: http://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?threads/more-complicated-suspension-geometry.11867/#post-188475
        Post from july 2014.

        “Strut = McPherson

        With Double WishBones suspension you can simulate almost all the independent suspensions out there. The multi point suspensions are made this way because of lack of space in the actual real cars. The engineers want to create specific wheel movements but they don’t have space in the chassis to make the wishbones as long as they like, so they use multiple arms. In a sim you have infinite space so you could get the exact same wheel movements by using DWB that are as long as the real multipoint suspension arms extension and tangents.

        We will release live axles suspension in one of the following updates.”

        Like

  4. I personally enjoy how “built from the ground up” and “shorter chassis” are marketing hype according to McLarenF1Papa at Race Department.

    I am so glad I decided to look up the press releases last night and thankful James took it 1 step further.

    Like

    1. The funny thing about those response’s, is the AC apologists claim McLarens claims as a company should be taken with grain of salt, while we are to obediently accept everything Lord Kunos tells us.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Well, why are you still bothering with AC. That’s what i’m curious about. rF2 is superior in every single aspect isn’t it. And if you all start playing rF2 instead of wasting your time on AC rants we’ll end up with some filled mp servers at last.

        Like

      2. That’s not true. Mclaren’s (or any other manufacturer) claims will always be understood subjectively by everyone. You can’t compare raw data with subjective descriptions of car components.

        Like

      3. Actually, the really hilarious part is that you children are so incredibly inept that you actually think this article wasn’t an expose on ‘what happens when kids think they understand non-independent variables in .ini’.

        Basically everything that james is expecting to see as point of differentiation is 100%, flat out WRONG. In fact, his idea how things should be would directly result in vehicles with zero relation to the real world…

        In other words, he looked at .inis, drew conclusions that cannot possibly be drawn from those inis, (like looking one part of a chemical formula and ignoring the rest), then requested levels of differentiation that are completely unrealistic.

        This article has been useful though. Technically, it completely invalidated certain people’s opinions on AC. The only ones that thought this was even remotely similar to sound analysis simply have grade-school understanding of software.

        Like

    1. They have already done so. According to them they can’t always get the data from manufacturers, especially when the cars are new like the AMG and 650s, doing some guesswork allows them to add these cars in time for the console release, good from a marketing pov, bad from a simulation pov. I expect they will fix it up later when they have the numbers.

      Like

      1. Assetto Corsa is just a simcade racer for the casual gamer masses. rFactor 2 is a real simulator with unparalleled simulation accuracy.

        Like

      2. Actually trying to reply to James (below, I think), but his comment doesn’t include a reply button.

        To be fair, Ales (sp?) also claims that using the same values in 3D space (x,y,z coordinates) doesn’t necessarily produce equivalent results, but unless other variables are introduced, I’m not sure how this is possible. Unfortunately, he didn’t elaborate on the comment, and I can’t.

        Nonetheless, since I can’t even pretend to understand these aspects of vehicle simulation, forming an opinion requires further evidence.

        I also wouldn’t be surprised if this is common practice throughout the industry.

        Like

  5. If Kunos thinks we are losers and “the plague” why would he care what he sells us, it’s about the money, way of the world guys. Why would any body think any company would release specs on their new car. That should have been a red flag. That is why it’s such a big deal that iracing has a newer F1 in their sim.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. ” the new AMG GT3 is much wider than it’s predecessor, the SLS GT3. This means every single one of the wishbone mounting points for the new car will be different”

    In your own words, every single one of the wishbone mounting points for the new car is different. Each line has at least one number changed. Obviously the significance of the other numbers varies – the ‘0’ at the start of every line is completely insignificant, almost no suspensions use wishbones more than a metre long so this’ll just be 0 in every car. The 4th decimal place (tenths of millimetres) is likewise not particularly significant. Real cars have physical tolerances which eat up this kind of information – when the entire bushing flexes enough to move the mounting point millimetres, the suspension is designed to work correctly within that entire range of values.

    You’ll see this in any game – calculated values (eg. “1 3/8 inch in millimetres”) have extreme “accuracy” (6-7 digits), while hand-tuned ones usually only have the most significant 2 adjusted, because that’s the part that actually affects handling. Take for example the tire spring K = 313477. The last half of that number is only there to make it 6 digits long, there’s no way you’ll feel a handling difference by changing something 0.0001%, and there’s certainly no way they measured a real tire to get that value.

    Due to the way suspension’s set up in AC, there are two features pertinent to copy-pasting.
    1) as much as possible, measurable properties are isolated. For example, track & caster – changing the track width doesn’t affect the caster, changing the caster doesn’t affect the track width. If two cars are designed with 1730mm of track, then their files will both say 1730mm. Finding 1730mm entered in both is not some sort of ‘aha’ moment, it’s just two designers reaching the same conclusions about the optimal design of a car that has to be 2050mm wide (as the GT3 spec is).
    2) the wishbones, upper and lower, have fewer degrees of freedom than variables. This is a more hypothetical thing – they’re defined as 3 ball joints, ie. 9 variables, but since 2 of those ball joints are attached to the same other rigid body (the chassis), they don’t behave like ball joints – the pair of them behaves like a hinge, which only has one axis free to rotate around. The specific location of the 2 ball joints along that axis doesn’t affect handling – you could slide them along it, and it would still be rotating around that same axis. The result of this is that you can copy a car, and replicate another car’s suspension kinematics exactly, without changing all 9 variables – changing 7 is always sufficient to produce a suspension that’s indistinguishable from the real thing.

    In combination, the two points mean that, if you want to match a car’s physics to the relevant data (caster, kpi, scrub radius, mechanical trail, camber change on deflection, etc.), (1) a lot of these can be changed by adjusting a single number, (2) you have a bunch of variables that don’t need to be adjusted to produce realistic results.

    If you just want ‘realistic simulation’ then the only thing that matters is the end result – does it have the correct caster, camber, etc. Being able to enter the actual positions of the wishbones is only one of convenience – if you have this data, you can type it in and be assured the dynamics will be correct. If you don’t have it, you crack open the suspension editor and adjust things until the dynamics are correct, which will happen long before you’ve edited every single number in the file.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Indeed, if PRC would be the unbiased blog James claims it is, or at least his own articles, he would try to place an opposing argument/evidence. But since he wants to remain biased, he only puts information/opinion that suits his agenda, which is to denigrate AC. A truly unbiased person would give people different points of view on a subject, instead of trying to make people think what they want them to think.
        For example this big post above is a good explanation why certain things are how they are.

        Like

      1. So McLaren would privately inform you about the correctness of their 650s gt3 and not inform Kunos? Btw, what if McLaren informed Kunos that the car isn’t exactly right but they agreed to this because they don’t want to share the most accurate data to ‘public’, for now?

        Like

      2. “So McLaren would privately inform you about the correctness of their 650s gt3 and not inform Kunos? Btw, what if McLaren informed Kunos that the car isn’t exactly right but they agreed to this because they don’t want to share the most accurate data to ‘public’, for now?”
        ——————————————————————————————————————————

        Oh man this is getting to WMD stupidity, why would James or more Importantly McLaren lie, they clearly both doing it to fuck over Lord Kunos teh honest and their very dedicated fans, email them yourself ffs.

        Like

      3. This must be hard for ya Hexxjnr, extra dose of ritalin today for you, otherwise you gonna overheat sat at PC spamming that “anti AC” BS, I have to hand it to ya though, the amount of fucking retards that think you are a genuine AC “hater” is fucking hilarious.

        You gonna have to keep spamming to try bury this one eh?maybe you should just give up and hit codemasters again for your simming needs, Im surprised you can even run AC, since you rig seems to struggle with GSCE.

        Like

      4. Of course, why would James (prc) lie. But is fine accusing the developers of lying. Because James himself knows what similar suspension attach points mean for each car.

        Ok, so let’s see it this way. Now that you guys cracked open the encrypted files of the official cars, how about you make the correct 650s gt3 and amg gt3? Maybe even contact McLaren GT again and build the official cars as mods with their help. I’m pretty sure if James writes them certain suspension number, they at least can confirm he guessed the correct ones from the real life car. That’s how it works isn’t it? James contacts McLaren GT, shows them certain raw data and they will confirm whether is correct or not, and then you can build the official mod car from that.

        Like

      5. “Ok, so let’s see it this way. Now that you guys cracked open the encrypted files of the official cars, how about you make the correct 650s gt3 and amg gt3? Maybe even contact McLaren GT again and build the official cars as mods with their help.”

        What are you blabbing on about, so now because james\Prc published THIS issue, (one of many, dont need PRC to know that, just visit support forum), he now has to start modding to somehow how justify the findings to you?

        Also pls elaborate what you think james is “lying” about, or is it McLaren or is it the various modders finding the many issues, or MAYBE its a revenging PCARS fanboy still butt hurt over AC attack on them for being such lower class of sim lol, apprantly AC fuckers dont like it when same spotlight on their title.

        The irony is much, the butt hurt mucher.

        Like

      6. But so far no one has pointed out why the exact numbers from 650s gt3 and amg gt3 are wrong. Even if they are, on what concrete things you’re basing yourself? Are you basing yourself in the subjective introduction mclaren had about the 650s gt3 and its differences to the mp4-12c gt3? Lets say the current numbers in the new cars in AC are wrong, now based on the press release about the 650s gt3 from mclaren, how much should those numbers change? And how would you prove those new different numbers are as realistic as the real life car and more realistic than AC’s version?

        Like

      7. It would take more testing, as some point out, input data in sims is not THAT important, its the output, problem is AC is very limited (appear deliberate too) on outputs, a few dev tools and very limited Tele outputs, for some utterly bizarre reason they dont even have a I\M\o output, making tele data regarding tyres temps useless, thats one example, if compared AC tele to real life you just have far to many holes to fill to get accurate comparison,even comparing to other sims tele is very underwhelming for AC.

        What this article points more to, is how little time and apprant care they appear to be doing these cars, barely a few months after last DLC (2) they have a brand fucking new one with a ton of cars AND a laser scanned track, all done by (we keep getting told this) a small team, and all this while actual decent features (even basic features) are constantly being missed,apprantly pit stops and flags are harder to implement then to build brand new rare GT3 cars for AC every couple of months.

        Like

      8. Based on the screencaps of the 650 GT3, the suspension mount point movements in AC can be summarized as
        * on-car mounting points moved upward & outward (all 4 of them by the same amount using BASEY)
        * upper spindle ball joint moved (primarily to change KPI)
        As a consequence the only part that would be interchangeable with the MP4-12C GT3 is the lower wishbone – the upper wishbone, spindle, and on-car mounting points are different.

        If they changed the ARB or shock mounts then the lower wishbone would be new too, no way to tell if that’s the case from this data since AC abstracts those out and uses wheel rates.

        Like

  7. can you please replace those screenshots where we can actually read the numbers? 🙂 Without that red and green marker over them, the green makes it totally unreadable. Just make a small line or dot next to the numbers that are different.

    Like

    1. Well, one of my favorite banners from this site basically read “Pretend Race Cars, Real Autism”, so this isn’t exactly the best place to basically imply “think of all the poor kids starving in Africa while you waste time doing this!”

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Major Misinformation! Geeks that used to be bullied and socially awkward in high schools in the 80s and 90s are the ones pushing technology forward. And the popular guy is now working at Subway.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. If I were going to criticize Kunos’ physics, and I think there are a lot of fair criticisms to be had, I’d probably start with the output data and not the input data. The output that the sim is generating in terms of how the car drives and reacts in different situations is more important than the numbers you’re feeding it to get those characteristics. There is no consumer-level sim that can generate a reasonable portrayal of the behavior of a racecar based on feeding it real-life data.

    Like

    1. When you enter real data to rFactor 2, it works like real life, it’s not the case for Assetto Corsa, you always have to use workarounds and substitute models 🙂

      Like

      1. Really, so if you enter the physical characteristics of a tire in rf2 it outputs accurate handling? That means you don’t have to create a slip angle vs grip curve and adjust it until the car behaves properly anymore?

        Like

    2. When I said I don’t really feel the physics in Assetto Corsa to be of simulation value, I was comparing it to the way a racing driver and racing team and even vehicle manufacturers can use rFactor and rFactor 2’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

    3. Assetto Corsa is developed by Italian studio Kunos Simulazion – Released last year for Windows, the game will be coming to PS4 and Xbox One next year, it does cede a little more ground to the notion that ‘game’ isn’t such a dirty word.

      According to James Dover, the game can be happily played with a controller. But while the game does deliver in terms of graphics, James reckons its physics engine “lacks seriousness”.

      Like

    4. So guess you haven’t heard of rF1 or rF2. What you are describing is essentially a thing called “fudging”. While the end result might accidentally be realistic, there is something wrong in the underlying physics engine if you have to fudge your way there. Problem is that such system doesn’t scale well into different scenarios. It probably only works in the area where developers (=fudge bakers) have tested it. Anything out of that box, and we are in uncharted terrain which might cause all sorts of problems and issues. And who are the people that go there? Players and modders. If developer want to achieve believable simulation that has room for modifications and various gameplay situations, the underlying physics engine must be bullet proof.

      Bigger issue is that developing a simulation game on top of a failed physics engine must be costly work as the fudge dough needs to be different for each and every vehicle. That’s why it is easier and safer to just copy and paste premade working car, and change some little things here and there which don’t have drastic impact on the end result.

      I am very disappointed in Assetto Corsa, shame that I went with the hype and bought it back then.

      Like

      1. You fudge because you don’t have all the data/numbers you need to simulate that car. Physics engine being on point or not is not relevant here. What if Reiza, SMS, ISI, Iracing don’t have all the data they need? They will need to come up with ways to simulate that car by best approximation possible, independently of how good or bad the physics engine is.

        Like

    5. It doesn’t work in rF either. The best handling cars in the ISI engine fudge the living hell out of the data.. That is a fact.

      Like

      1. As former rF2 modder I can tell you that your argument is invalid. The official cars (which are considered finished by ISI) are not fudged at all. When I was modding some cars based on real life data, I could easily see that the real life data in the game generated expected results. Any fudging, and it would have drifted away from the realism.

        I have never expected any less from so called simulator developers, and I am disappointed that apart from ISI the whole scene is fucked up.

        Like

      2. I can’t because I have never modded AC. But if there is concern that developers themselves do not use real life data, then one possibility is that it doesn’t work out as it should. There may be other reasons as well, and the physics engine itself would still be very good. I can only argue on behalf rF1 and 2 as I am familiar with them.

        Like

      3. You immediately say they aren’t using real life data because the physics engine doesn’t work with real life data, instead of also putting the question if they have all the data needed for it.
        Quite some bias there hey.. Maybe try becoming a PRC writer, I think you already passed the trial lol

        Like

      4. I have hard time to comprehend why they would not use real life data if their physics engine would allow it and produce most realistic results with it. Sure I am biased because I have been fucked into the ass and mouth, but only ISI did that with really small penis.

        Like

      5. “I have hard time to comprehend why they would not use real life data”

        Read this: https://drracing.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/how-close-is-close-enough-part-2/

        “As i stressed a lot in my previous article, every simulation is nearly useless if the data we input are not accurate or even wrong, no matter how good the source code is. (…) Unfortunately, as we already said, getting good data is sometimes very complicated. Sometimes this data doesn’t exist at all (you would be surprised to see how many teams, even at pretty high level in motorsport, don’t have or didn’t received data about their car from the manufacturers), sometimes it is very confidential and nobody really wants to share it.
        In situations where you don’t get all what you want (and, in certain areas, you normally don’t get what you want!), experience can play a big role, both in understanding and estimating how certain components/systems could behave or relying on previous projects to model some of the components behavior, without having direct measurements about them.”

        Like

      6. “When I was modding some cars based on real life data”

        Can you give a source for the tire data you were using? Given that the interaction between the tires and road are the most important part of modelling a car, I’m assuming you had 100% accurate data on how the tires behaved at different speeds, at different surface conditions, and under different loadings? Or did you copy/paste that data from another car that already works and/or fudge it until it behaved the way you wanted, like every professional or amateur who has ever modelled the physics for a car for a commercial-grade sim?

        Like

      7. @Jason Moyer, have you even seen,played or even looked at ISI’s tyre model? correct temps, a real contact patch YOU CAN ACTUALLY MONITOR LIVE, deformation visually and internal, its a fully dynamic model,proper damage to tyre (even different parts like cooking inners while outter fresh) its so far ahead of competition its not funny, you really up against it using RF2 as a example of “fudging” , anybody who understands and seen the model knows it.

        “Given that the interaction between the tires and road are the most important part of modelling a car”

        Yeah no shit, hence why Kunos should have our criticisms on seemingly basics tyre concepts that are out of wack over a year after release and still going through major changes, and hence why ISI spend a eternity on modeling tyres properly in true “next gen” fashion,but yet again AC fanboys jump up and down and claim tyre discrepancies not that important, its all about the feel man.

        Like

      8. I will reply anyway even how futile it is. ISI has good collection of various tires premade. Knowing how damn difficult it is to start developing your custom tire, I never truly messed with that area of the simulation. So the availability of tires dictated what sort of cars I was able to mod.

        Like

  9. “The tires seem to fare a bit better, with the hard compound racing slicks – ideal for long online races in Assetto Corsa – receiving noticeable improvements on the 650S as described by both McLaren themselves, as well as Road & Track.”
    ————————————————————————————————————————–

    Oh thats good I suppose, its a shame then the Softer compounds has 0 disadvantages over Hard, making softest tyre the best choice in AC every time, regardless how long the race is.

    Like

      1. They used to be a joke in GT2s/GTEs at least, in 1.3 there were races I was joining you could do 40,45 minutes with fucking supersofts man, and fast laps. They faded a bit at the end but not even close of a disadvantage. Where in the world you can do a entire race on qualifying tires? Normal wear rates just to make it clear.

        I remember this excessive wear in GT3s also, but the disparity between the tires is bloody nonsense. Both classes use the so called “Type 5” tires.

        Didn`t tried 1.4 ever since, so I`m just saying the way it was one.

        Like

  10. It is all about the fast buck now. Hey these cars have similar architecture lets make some money!
    Our rubes are too stupid to get it and will praise us and thank us.
    Ian Bell is a proud role model for all dev studios these days.

    Fuck what people paid for and what they were expected to receive. Eat shit and say thanks retard.

    Like

  11. How much different in terms of input data is the mp4-12c gt3 (mod) in rf2? And how much different would it be if the modders were to make the 650s version?

    Like

  12. And then we´ll wonder why X car in shitty games like Project CARS or Assetto Corsa can lap 3 seconds faster per lap in the virtual World. This is the kind of shit that causes these problems.

    Like

    1. Like you wouldn’t in other sims. In fact, people are putting slower times in AC over the months, mainly because of tyre model updates.

      In fact, the best Spa lap time in AC for the 650s gt3 is 2:20.683 and from real life qualifying is 2:19.221, by the team Von Ryan Racing.

      Like

  13. To me, splitting hairs is a waste of time. Unless you do have a sophisticated moving simracing platform with servomotors, the experience of driving a real car will be different to driving the exact same car in a racing sim. It’s like with go-karts: I have zero problems driving them in RL, If I am at a new track two-three laps is enough to get the basic grasp of the layout and start pushing. If I drive such a kart at GSE, or rF2, it always is different, more difficult, less natural, even after 100 laps. The physics may be exactly matching the RL counterpart, but there are other senses that come into play, the way you experience speed, the bumps, the field of vision, the butt feeling, evertyhing. It’s as important as the physics themselves. So as long as the simulated cars don’t do anything stupid, are predictable and feel natural I really don’t mind if the devs have cut any corners or not.

    Like

      1. To be fair, the R8 and the Huracan share the same chassis, the same engine and God knows what else. While it’s completely stupid for Kunos to use the files from the street R8 for the GT3 Huracan, the real cars share a lot of parts.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Did you know that the suspension attach points are points in a 3d map? x y z. You will only get radically different numbers between cars that are radically different in size, but the opposite for similar cars especially for the same type of suspension.

        Like

      3. Can you confirm that the R8 and Huracan are the same chassis? All I could find is that it is made in the same plant in Germany.

        Besides you’re really putting yourself out there considering that the R8 in game is an old model compared to the basically brand new Huracan. Let alone not a GT3 car….

        Like

      4. What about the other suspension parameters values? A suspension/wheel alignment isn’t just their mounting points. Especially since suspension attach points are coordinates in 3d space, but that’s just the architecture, there is more data to suspensions than mounting points. Did you see those and compared?
        Maybe when McLaren talked about revised suspension it didn’t mean just the mounting points. Did you take a look at that?

        Like

      5. This is a reply for @Chris, with facts to back my claims that under the hood Huracan and R8 are the same car.
        Read these articles in the order I post them, the 4th one is a sort of “recap”.
        It all started with the old R8 and the Gallardo. There are no official reports, but it’s common knowledge that the two cars share a lot.
        http://www.pistonheads.com/features/ph-features/lamborghini-gallardo-vs-audi-r8-v10-blood-bros/29099
        New R8 and Huracan share the same hybrid chassis.
        http://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-eurocars/next-r8-to-share-huracan-chassis/29532
        More details of the Huracan.
        http://www.pistonheads.com/features/ph-features/lamborghini-huracan–full-story/29539
        An opinional piece regarding this story.
        http://www.pistonheads.com/regulars/blog/lamborghini-huracan-vs-new-audi-r8-ph-blog/29640

        Like

      6. to the guy above, NEW R8 isn’t in the game, so how the fuck can the old R8 share the same data with the new Huracan racecar? your facts are shit homie.

        Like

  14. >refusing to ask more from the world around you can suspend your growth, and keep you in a perpetual state of childhood where quality is irrelevant. No, you’re not “entitled” for pushing developers to “get it right”; allowing them to settle into a rhythm of “just get it out there” is how we end up with less than satisfactory products, ones which dumb ourselves down and keep us in a child-like state. Striving for more instead of settling for less shows maturity.

    RBR and Dirt Rally come to mind

    Like

      1. “I don’t want to adjust caster. Have you ever adjusted caster and why on what car?”

        Are you fucking serious? Caster is a extremely important setting, and can change dynamics of car in a instant, caster is as easy to understand as camber (although a lot seem to be confused about that too), its one of those setups options that ALWAYS gets tweaked by me, in sim racing caster can even have a effect on FFB,If FFB running off physics of course.

        Vid for you as Im not explaining more basic shit on forums, its fucking hilarious you think caster is somehow irrelevant, maybe Stefano was right when he said ppl (AC players?) are too stupid to care about proper options in setup screen.

        Like

      2. “I know what caster is and its effects. But if is so crucial, why aren’t more people requesting it?”

        Oh ok you know, but dont want to adjust it?

        I have no idea why AC community doesnt push for no tonly this but other virtal stuff,ask the AC community, or better yet take Stefano comments as a reply, in his opinion its because you are all too stupid to understand it,better yet if you know what caster is and its importance why aren’t you requesting it?also why dont you want to use it\have it? lol you dug ya self a nice wee hole.

        Like

      3. “I know what caster is and its effects. But if is so crucial, why aren’t more people requesting it?”

        That’s just AC players for you.
        They’re all about the depth of the simulation… LOLZ

        Like

      4. Ahh, yes but let’s just post the lines from ISI where they actually publicly acknowledge that they were waiting on more data…and where because they actually said that, people didn’t lose their shit…

        As said before, if Kunos come and say “yes, we don’t have the data we need and we are waiting on it, but in the meantime, we’ve got a reasonable placeholder in so that you can fill out your GT3 Grids more and enjoy”

        I would be ok with that because I get it, current cars can be hard to get proper details on.
        In ISI’s case, they seem to encrypt sensitive details if they are told to by the manufacturer.

        Like

  15. This place is Cancer. So much wasted energy in here.

    Try and actually play the games you all spend so much time stressing about and maybe dead ones like RF2 and GSCE will have some servers active.

    Oh wait, the average ‘simracer’ online can’t even finish a sprint race without crashing and causing a clusterfuck. “But we need more feautures and realisim” Bullshit, we need a better community, this is embarrassing.

    Like

    1. RF2 and I find GSCE are universally good MP players, maybe thats why so few numbers, driving fast AND competently is a hard skill, what is a average “simracer”? ppl that dont even care about underlying physics?

      Where are you finding these MP races where ppl are struggling to finish by the way? Im curious as Ive given up on AC MP, being in NZ I cant play 99 per cent of servers, even fucking aussie servers have issues, the only title Ive played on MP where being in NZ is a major issue, but in other sims like GSCE rf2 and even raceroom(outside of free content) I can fully play on euro servers and they produce some fantastic races when found, quantity over quality again for AC I guess?

      Ppl love to claim to play “race sims”, but so few apparently care so little about underlying physics its no revelation at all that Pcar\AC is far more popular.

      Also, if dont want to discuss “sims” then fuck off and go play, for some, gaming all day isn’t possible, but replying to threads talking about simming is easy these days no matter where you are, get off ya fucking high horse, you are on a blog that talks about sim racing, telling ppl not to talk about sim racing? what the actual fuck?

      Like

      1. So much bullshit dude, for you, everyone who isn’t using rf2 doesn’t care about realistic physics and simulation. Talk about being an elitist.

        And just because you can’t play fine from NZ in European servers or AU/NZ servers, doesn’t mean others can’t.
        There are good servers in your region hosted by martcerv http://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?members/martcerv.14294/

        How good is your internet though? http://www.speedtest.net/ http://www.pingtest.net/ (for this one you need java installed to test packet loss).

        Maybe you should post a gameplay video to let us see how bad your MP/netcode experience is from where you’re playing.

        Like

      2. Martys server and some random aussie drift one was only one could ever get on,and even then some guy from US or europe joined then things got funny, there is nothing wrong with my net, I play online as regularly as possible in GSCE,RRE and RF2 where I have next to zero issues with servers based around world.

        To be fair I haven’t tried AC at all in recent update, as again last time I tried, got no where, lost packet issues mainly I think, that is not a issue in any other game\sim I play, when DRM mod gets released for AC will be next time try MP in AC, as AI still gonna be shite no doubt,and this is a series I want to race more than any.

        Video? lol no, I will almost certainly be uploading AC vids with DRM though asap.

        Like

    1. Are we at this level? Really?

      Yes. I would sincerely hope that one Elise is the basically the same as a very similar Elise…if they weren’t…well…

      Like

    1. lol spotted, god damn it, cause I ride the edge man, who knew the boxmaster was so easily rolled, thought I could get away with hopping in race few mins before start,apprantly not.

      Like

      1. heh np they tricksy, just a question as a whiole to the entire community. Why do we play these games? is it for an authentic experience? or is it fr the pure mathematical simulation? cos if its the latter, we best sell all our gear and give up as NO game is right. Rf2 may be the closest but with the faults that has ( rain comming through the windscreen at ya, rain tires. Oval and tires not working etc) why would you even bother?

        Like

      2. Wet tyres are really bloody great now, all the updated cars since the Brabham have really sweet wets. The physical side of rain? No, not at all. It’s enough to see the track is wet, different amounts of wetness and the dryline, and the rain coming down.
        But the driving side, yeah real good.

        Not sure what you mean about oval tyres. The guy who said you can go flat around Charlotte could do it once out of every 10 attempts, and each time the tyres were shot after one corner 😄

        Like

      1. God damn it, why did it auto paste that in…

        Anyways, yes, of course it’s Stefano, not simply random trolls typing ‘Stefano’ into the name field 😉

        Like

  16. this doesn’t surprise me. I always felt a bit that Kunos lacks attention to details. They do most things right, but then miss out on small details.

    to the majority of the players, this won’t really matter, so I can see why Kunos did what they did. They can also be waiting for official data – but didn’t wanted to delay the relase of the DP and since updating entire physics for a car is just few KB of data, it can be easily updated later on , unlike car or track which goes form 60mb to 500mb for a track (even if the update is quite small)

    what I really find marvellous on this whole situation though, is the fact that some time ago, when you were “bashing” pCARS, there were celebrations on AC forums of this site, being correct and fair, no BS .. etc. , but now that their own belowed AC is under the same pressure, sudenly this site is not worthy 😀

    hypocrite? that’s what that’s called, isn’t ?

    thanks for this article 😉

    Like

    1. “what I really find marvellous on this whole situation though, is the fact that some time ago, when you were “bashing” pCARS, there were celebrations on AC forums of this site, being correct and fair, no BS .. etc. , but now that their own beloved AC is under the same pressure, sudenly this site is not worthy ”

      Yep, its almost a mirror image,even the some of the response’s could be taken straight out of WMD handbook,playing the ppl and not the issue, claiming things like ppl finding issues should “work with the software” or “go play something else”.

      Yet most drama stems not from the complaints like some claim, but the stupid protective, irrational reactions of the Kunos defence militia, stefans and some of other devs responses have helped zero, apparently they learnt nothing off bell,

      difference with is AC is could be far better(and unfortunately holds the keys to group 5 mod), and is not based on ISI tech therefore a potential healthy competitor to ISI, so a IMO alot of the complainers of AC issues,despite what some think,genuinely want to see a stand up sim from kunos, they got close and just appeared to give up to a degree, and when look at the way they dropped Netkar and with console version coming up,potentially harming PC dev more, serious simmers have cause for concern IMO if want to see AC flower into a full blown gorgeous sim.

      Like

      1. Most of the time you see people defend AC because many of the attacks to it aren’t correct. When people attack rf2 and you don’t find it correct, you don’t defend it either? Take this article for example.
        Many of the claims done by PRC are without actual knowledge of how things are in real life and in the game’s reality.

        There’s a post made recently about this, talking in a more technical manner about the subject: https://pretendracecars.net/2016/01/04/numbers-matching-has-a-negative-connotation/comment-page-1/#comment-19144

        Like

    2. It’s funny how someone impersonating a modder that tends to think himself as rather talented, yet apparently he doesn’t know ANYTHING about the file structure of AC or what the values in the inis james compared actually mean.

      Useless troll or useless modder, your choice 🙂

      Not a single informed modder would agree with the technical accuracy of this article if they have worked with AC physics in any relevant or worthwhile capacity.

      Anyone who does is simply showing their ignorance.

      If I had more confidence in Jame’s technical ability, I would say he did this on purpose to expose uninformed pretend-knowledge trolls….

      Like

      1. lol

        FMecha, I am angry today. My non-independently produced race car appears to be based on the parent company’s IPs in terms of chassis layout and suspension geometry as measured from middle of wheel in a singular tangent.

        Because I didn’t bother to do any research, I expected everything to be entirely different when observed through the most basic fundamentals of vehicle performance and geometry.

        Like

  17. Wow…. Just wow…

    It’s one thing for a 3rd party freeware modder to do this when they can’t get the actual data… But for anyone charging for this, especially Kunos with their marketing campaigns of the hunt for driving realism…

    Wow…

    And I thought the last few months of the tyres going backwards was bad…

    Like

    1. one more that doesn’t know how cars are created in AC. Even worse, one more who doesn’t know how similar those cars are in real life in terms of mounting designs.

      Like

  18. Interesting numbers, but even Stefano once admitted that they have to guess some numbers if they don´t get them from the manufacturers and in this case it´s better to take the values form the predecessor than to fake values.

    But i´ve some arguments about car handling and lap times, especially @Nordschleife Endurance (24h layout). The GT3-cars were always to slow compare to RL, but with the newest tyre model this even got much worse. Comparing the last qualifying times without speed limits with the record times in RSR, they don´t match:
    http://www.24h-rennen.de/uploads/media/24h_Qualifying_01.pdf
    vs http://www.radiators-champ.com/RSRLiveTiming/index.php?page=world_records

    The best Alien-lap with the McLaren MP4-12C GT3 is 14 seconds slower than the best lap in RL. That´s a real big gap considering that aliens should be at least a little faster not risking car and life. The GT3-cars in AC are more matching to the qualifying laps 2015. The problem is, they introduced three unpleasant speed limits with about 40 Km/h of speed loss plus a drop of 10 percent performance due to a deadly accident before with a Nissan GT3* you never could simulate in AC. Some could argue, that the BOP in the GT3-class in AC has even more performance loss, but as i read the MP4-12C GT3 is already the least powerful car in this class so that other cars get´s more weight to match the performance. The top- and some corner- speeds also doesn´t match with RL.

    But even more interesting is the car-handling of the MP4-12C GT3. You can´t do this at all with the AC-version: https://youtu.be/ajN5fVVOLOw

    *Would be all just some 1st world problem, but this deadly accident (for a spectator) maybe also happened because i think this Nordschleife-rookie was practising the track in AC and didn´t know he must be more carefull before this crest: https://youtu.be/LGi1iI4uZOE
    This awesome Nordschleife 0.6 in rF2 with the AM FIA GT3 mod for example gives you a much better feeling what the car is doing at this crest and you certainly need to break with a Porsche, but it feels very dangerous with any other GT3-cars as well, if you don´t break. But through the next corner (Flugplatz) after this accident you can go faster in RL (and rF2) than in AC.

    AC is still a simulator, but they should add: don´t take is to serious:)

    Like

  19. Interesting numbers, but even Stefano once admitted that they have to guess some numbers if they don´t get them from the manufacturers and in this case it´s better to take the values form the predecessor than to fake values.

    But i´ve some arguments about car handling and lap times, especially @Nordschleife Endurance (24h layout). The GT3-cars were always to slow compare to RL, but with the newest tyre model this even got much worse. Comparing the last qualifying times without speed limits with the record times in RSR, they don´t match:
    http://www.24h-rennen.de/uploads/media/24h_Qualifying_01.pdf
    vs http://www.radiators-champ.com/RSRLiveTiming/index.php?page=world_records

    The best Alien-lap with the McLaren MP4-12C GT3 is 14 seconds slower than the best lap in RL. That´s a real big gap considering that aliens should be at least a little faster not risking car and life. The GT3-cars in AC are more matching to the qualifying laps 2015. The problem is, they introduced three unpleasant speed limits with about 40 Km/h of speed loss plus a drop of 10 percent performance due to a deadly accident before with a Nissan GT3* you never could simulate in AC. Some could argue, that the BOP in the GT3-class in AC has even more performance loss, but as i read the MP4-12C GT3 is already the least powerful car in this class so that other cars get´s more weight to match the performance. The top- and some corner- speeds also doesn´t match with RL.

    But even more interesting is the car-handling of the MP4-12C GT3. You can´t do this at all with the AC-version: https://youtu.be/ajN5fVVOLOw

    *Would be all just some 1st world problem, but this deadly accident (for a spectator) maybe also happened because i think this Nordschleife-rookie was practising the track in AC and didn´t know he must be more carefull before this crest: https://youtu.be/LGi1iI4uZOE
    This awesome Nordschleife 0.6 in rF2 with the AM FIA GT3 mod for example gives you a much better feeling what the car is doing at this crest and you certainly need to break with a Porsche, but it feels very dangerous with any other GT3-cars as well, if you don´t break. But through the next corner (Flugplatz) after this accident you can go faster in RL (and rF2) than in AC.

    AC is still a simulator, but they should add: don´t take is to serious.

    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