The McLaren 1300 GT3?

As part of their fall 2015 downloadable content bundle for Assetto Corsa, Kunos Simulazioni’s partnership with McLaren allowed them to bring their significantly more refined GT3 entry – the 650s – into the popular PC racing simulator to legions upon legions of hardcore motor racing fans. Boasting an entirely new front suspension configuration under the body work, a slightly more appealing nose piece, and a tremendously less bizarre name to type out on a keyboard, the 650s was just one of the ten cars Assetto Corsa enthusiasts could get their hands on for a pretty reasonable price. While each vehicle featured in the bundle added something extra to Assetto Corsa, kicking off a wave of DLC that still hasn’t let up many years later, the 650s found a natural home in the GT3 category, becoming a go-to car for several sim racers who prefer their race cars with the engine in the rear, and exhaust gasses fed back into the engine. McLaren’s Formula One program may be failing, but it certainly hasn’t stopped them from engineering some ridiculously sexy race cars elsewhere in the motorsports kingdom.

Now at the command of rFactor 2, Studio 397 have brought this same car into the world of ISI’s mishandled project – the McLaren 650s GT3 marking the first piece of paid DLC for the aging racing simulator. Four other licensed GT3 cars are said to follow suit in a more comprehensive pack that will be available in the near future, but the 650s appears to have received special treatment and gotten the green light much earlier than the others, as it will be used in McLaren’s own World’s Fastest Gamer competition that’s getting underway right this minute.

(Maybe it’s best to ignore that they’re lapping over two full seconds quicker than the real life car. Some top-tier simulation you’ve got there.)

As I’ve mentioned in a previous article, I do not feel comfortable knocking Studio 397 for releasing paid downloadable content for rFactor 2, as in my opinion the McLaren 650s is an excellent addition to the simulator, and worth the asking price if you purchased the car in the larger GT3 bundle. rFactor 2 for the longest time has been nothing but a slew of awkward content that never really meshed well together – over-saturated with generic open wheel rides and unlicensed knock-off’s – so having a familiar face on the vehicle roster will help sim racers on the fence see the software in a much more welcoming light. It’s probably going to suck major balls for some rFactor 2 owners who paid for lifetime and got practically nothing in return aside from being told they’d have to buy all of the upcoming relevant content on top of their base purchase, but it’s a necessary evil to move rFactor 2 forward. The modding community just isn’t there like the first game to pick up the slack and turn the sim into something wild.

However, what sim racers might have an issue with, is what exactly it is they’re paying for. The McLaren 650s is the first official content release under rFactor 2’s new overlords, Studio 397, so a lot of people have been looking forward to this because it will indicate the quality of material the new group are capable of producing. Unfortunately, unless I have enormously bad eye-sight, the 3D model used in Studio 397’s McLaren 650s GT3 appears to be identical to the one Kunos Simulazioni used for the Dream Pack DLC. Please enlarge the picture I’ve inserted below and compare between the two images the following elements:

  • The direction the steering wheel knobs have been turned.
  • The position of the RaceLogic on-board laptime tracker
  • The air vent angles
  • The windscreen sunstrip proportions
  • The same brake bias dial with poor UV mapping

Textures, of course, have been slightly changed, but to any average Joe comparing the two images – the left being rFactor 2 and the right being Assetto Corsa – it’s extremely hard to deny that this may possibly be the exact same car model.

Is this a bad thing?

Well, yeah, kind of.Sim racers constantly mock Forza Motorsport fans for getting sucked into Turn 10’s expensive monthly DLC cycle, which in past years – especially on the Xbox 360 – had seen the development team sell the same cars as DLC with each passing iteration of the franchise, meaning that some gamers were paying a fee multiple times just to access a near identical set of cars for their new game. In the most notorious cases, the hardcore Forza supporters among us have purchased no less than three seperate Porsche packs – one for Forza Motorsport 4, another for Horizon 3, and lastly a third pack for Forza Motorsport 6. Sim racers once had a valid argument to mock their console brethren, yet now some of these same sim racers have a bit of explaining to do.

It also reflects poorly on Studio 397. This is a team whom were given the keys to the rFactor 2 kingdom at around this time last year, and many had high hopes for the direction in which they would take the dying hardcore simulator. For them to push out a car that at the very least heavily borrows assets from a third party source, while other news sites are claiming they have built this car completely in-house, is kind of shitty. Will the other four cars, most likely the Mercedes AMG, BMW Z4, Audi R8, and the Nissan GT-R, also be suspiciously similar to their Assetto Corsa counterparts?

I’ve supplied the comparison photographs, and y’all can draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion it’s not a good look to push out a piece of original content where even the dials on the steering wheel and vertices that make up the windshield banner are difficult to differentiate from one game to the next.

Given how many talented modders there are in the sim racing community, it’s a real possibility that Studio 397 simply purchased the same 3D model that Kunos Simulazioni did – a team who are notorious for outsourcing their car models – but the difference here is that sim racers potentially already paid for the model once, as part of a ten car pack alongside an iconic track, and here they might be forking over six dollars for just the car itself. Studio 397 aren’t exactly in a position where people won’t care; they need to impress people, and fast, with their own creations for rFactor 2. Yet in this situation, to me it looks as if a sketchy amateur modder – the same ones chastized by the community for ripping car models – could have taken the McLaren 650s from Assetto Corsa and provided you with largely the same experience in rFactor 2 for no cost at all.

You know, a very familiar looking car model that posts laps two seconds quicker than the real car.

It’s certainly going to add a very interesting sub-plot into the sim racing community – is it okay if multiple developers share assets, and are customers okay with paying multiple times for the exact same car and car model, just to have it in as many games as possible? And on the flip side, should we continue to go on angry crusades against individuals who rip and convert content to inflate the car selection of their favorite simulator, when developers are potentially doing the same – albeit with permission from the original author first?

What a strange era for sim racing.



123 thoughts on “The McLaren 1300 GT3?

  1. shitstorm incoming

    the question is also: did they copy paste the physics and setups?
    If yes: RIP … AC is there so inferior to rF2, it will be shit


  2. clasping at straws. Cant see you name their James?? come on your the worlds best sim driver or are you using your alias “Awkward Ostrich “


  3. I thought they both sourced the model from URD. A modder had made that car from scratch for rf2 last year already, but I haven’t seen it put in game yet


  4. It could be all people who licensed it were provided with a CAD model too. Lando Calrissian lapped a little faster than real life while a few simracers beat the real life driver. Probably rf2 setup exploits and maybe permissive track cutting.


        1. Q trim at Silverstone in 2016, the pair of Stoneman/Jaafar/Watson ran a 2:00.256.

          Pole for the event was a 1:59.072 set by a Mercedes AMG.

          Current WFG #1 time is a 1:57.7.

          Spot the issue.


          1. are you just pretending or just stubborn and information resistant?

            direct link :

            at the end of the lap you see the time.

            not hard to find if you actually bother to research instead just to write nonsense and gossip as soon you see an opportunity. as for made inhouse it still can be the case, just saying, hint hint. think about it, reasearch.

            “Is this a bad thing?
            Well, yeah, kind of.
            bc forza”

            well yeah, bc forza. come on. anyways all of this will not chage anything so yeah. 🙂


            1. And then you’ll be eating your words when the WFG gang are into the 1:56’s… and then 1:55’s… And then suddenly your comment doesn’t age well.

              I’d like to know how in RaceRoom, I can jump in to a Silverstone leaderboard challenge and run a 1:59 in a GT3 car.

              And in pCars 2 (shill alert), I can turn laps in an LMP2 for an upcoming in-house 2.4 Hours of Le Mans test race, consult Q times from last year on the official PDF print-out, and be mid-pack for the real thing.

              But give sim racers a day with rF2, and suddenly they’re in an entirely different second bracket versus the actual series the car competes in, and this round closes next Thursday – so there’s tons of time for them to go even quicker.

              Which they will.


              1. and then and then and then and rre and pcars yeah….until then your article is (by your standards) a waste of wordpress code.

                laptimes are not the issue really.
                issue is how you get there. arguably not the best ever released car for rf2.


                  1. research, how often do you want me to repeat it. hoppin on conclusions on first chance ehh. i do not get it, obviously your are no complete honk so wth drives you dude? why not just breath a second and if you write all this crap and do all the work all the time why not propperly then?
                    need info, ask. lotta stuff still to be written. 🙂


          2. WFG is down to 1:57.00 after several 1000s of laps of over 1000 people and real life has a 1:58.04 hotlap on YouTube, so I think Studio 397 got it right:


  5. Perhaps Mclaren when providing licensed devs info also provide images of their official car and creators just overlay cads?? who cares its still better than AC’s version and no doubt better than Poocarstoo


          1. Proves nothing. Yes, a driver is not afraid of dying; but they also know the limit of the car and how much they can push to or over that limit. In sim racing, exploits and the escape key take that fear of exceeding the limits away. As for the model; have you thought that possibly the 3d model belongs to McLaren and have been passed onto the licence holders?
            You are really clutching at straws to achieve as much publicity for your sugar daddy, aren’t you.


            1. Did you miss this line in the article?

              “Given how many talented modders there are in the sim racing community, it’s a real possibility that Studio 397 simply purchased the same 3D model that Kunos Simulazioni did.”


              1. No. I read the whole article. Both companies(KS & S397) have partnerships with McLaren. It makes sense that the model(whether in CAD or some other modelling form) would be the same files. From there, there is quite a bit more work that goes into getting a quality mod in game. If you had half an idea about the complexities of modding then this article would not have been written.


      1. You don’t think the ability to repeatedly hotlap, without fear you might damage the car (or yourself) might account for the time difference?

        I’m genuinely curious, as real world qualifying times reflect a one-shot deal, also in very specific weather conditions.

        Track temperature differences between sim and real life might also may play a role.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. That’s half a second at best, being generous. A World Class racing driver isn’t lapping seconds off the ultimate pace because “he might crash”. That’s utterly stupid logic.

          In a qualifying lap you don’t give a shit about going off for any other reason that RUINING YOUR LAP. And you don’t back off more than a couple of tenths to make sure you don’t bin it if you’re not confident going for your one and only hotlap. Certainly not seconds.


          1. Although I’m almost certain you pulled that half a second argument out of your ass, I’m not arguing that fear plays a substantial role in the laptime differences.

            I’m curious whether the ability to repeatedly lap the circuit, trying every potential line and setup quirk, might not yield a few seconds vs. a driver’s single real world qually effort.

            Finally, and more importantly, given how much laptime is a function of track temperature, I’d make sure they were equivalent before drawing any conclusions about the sim.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. Have you ever driven one of the rFactor 2 race cars in real life? How do you know they don’t really weigh about 200 pounds?


  6. 1.Select a type of haiku. …
    2.Pick a topic. …
    3.Think about what is different about your last line. …
    4.Start writing.
    5.Don’t forget to count the syllables as you read to make sure you’ve got the right pattern.
    6.Finally, “center” your poem on the page like the poems in this lesson.
    um ok , her ya go …..
    your a dickhead


  7. Everyone wanks over rF2 but doing some testing to me it still has the classic ISI OP shit to drive setup exploits. Fast on there means overly loose plank, classic simracing handling.

    And it’s super lenient as well…


  8. The car drives exatly the same as it drives on AC. Only major difference is that Assetto cannot be driven in a rally style (like you can do in rF2) cause it’s a lot more snappy over the limit. Also it doesn’t grip as well as the car does in rF2.

    If I remember correctly the 3d model in AC has more details in the cockpit when you take a look around you in VR. Not 100% sure thou..


    1. Maybe it’s cos it feels the most like RL, whereas the other sims leave you scratching your head. I am now bald as a result.


  9. wow this website seems a bit desperate to feel included.
    Firstly i don’t think ISI silverstone is laser scanned. secondly, you have to take lap times with a grain of salt in that case as many variables like track conditions take into consideration.

    Car overall feels very similar to AC, once running in the 59-58s the car is quiet lively.

    the funny thing is 90% of the sim community have never driver a race car or quiet trash in general.

    the sim community is full of such petty people.


  10. “for several sim racers who prefer their race cars with the engine in the rear, and exhaust gasses fed back into the engine.”

    Not to be pedantic, but pretty sure the exhaust gasses aren’t fed back into the engine mate.

    Also, regarding the two second faster thing, it reminds me of that story about the GTR. When the Ferrari engineers ran the numbers on the GTR, they couldn’t comprehend how it could be that fast. The answer was basically ‘confidence’. The car was theoretically not as fast as the Ferrari, but due to driver confidence, the GTR driver could push harder.

    I know the argument has been made many times, but in the sim world you can push the absolute outer limits every single corner lap after lap after lap. IRL if the track conditions where perfect, you had endless time and an Esc key, is it not too much of a stretch to think you could find 1, maybe 2 seconds?

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Why would anyone buy a single car for 5€ in Rfactor 2 when Project CARS 2 is right around the corner and will feature better physics, graphics etc. Not to mention this car was already available in AC and other games two years ago for better price lol. RIP studio 397

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I have zero interest in rFactor 2 at this point, when two heavy hitters, Forza Motorsport 7 and Project CARS 2 are a mere months away.


    1. Who needs FM7 when I already have Total Immersion Racing? Can Turn 10 guarantee TOTAL immersion? No, of course not. Just shitty physics, shitty tires, shitty aero and a lot of DLC.


  13. Comparing laptimes between real and virtual is the least realistic way of actually comparing real and virtual because it doesn’t take into consideration outside factors. The car itself (or the physics “powering” it) alone is not enough. So everytime someone is dumb enough to compare the two things, just shows how little he knows, or understands.

    For instance, despite Silverstone being one track, there are two different measurements in use, one by the FIA in metres and another by UK sanctioning bodies in miles. In theory the translation should still match, but in reality one is considered longer than the other and viceversa because they’re measured in different ways as one follows the absolute center of the track and another follows the optimal racing line.

    Another thing to consider is the actual model of the track itself. AFAIK, the Silverstone available in rF2 (and to a degree, the older version of it available in SRW) are not laser scanned, just really accurate. Which means that the track is not 100% the same as the real one and is likely to be slightly shorter than the real one and narrower/wider in some places. Which translates in shorter straights, shorter corners and so on, all things that save time.

    Third thing to consider, is the fact that despite all being FIA-homologated, all GT3 cars racing nowadays run with different BoPs, specific to each championship. For instance, in the span of 1 month, 3 different championships visited Spa: British GT, Open GT and Blancpain GT. Cars are all the same but qualifying times are vastly different between each series.

    Results are as follow:
    British GT Q1: 2.20.x – Bentley
    British GT Q2: 2.18.x – Lamborghini
    Open GT Q1: 2.16.x – Lexus
    Open GT Q2: 2.37.x – Lamborghini <- In Open GT Q2 they apply extra weight ballasts on top of BoP
    Blancpain GT Q1: 2.18.x Mercedes
    Blancpain GT Q2: 2.17.x Ferrari

    Sources for all the times:
    British GT:
    Open GT:
    Blancpain GT:

    BoP can make you gain and lose between 1 and 4 seconds on average per lap. Back to the McLaren absurd case you're trying to mount, we're talking about a car that is absolutely and completely useless in half the championships it races in, only really competitive in PWC and sometimes in Australian GT. And it's the same for all the other cars. There is not a single car that is dominating the GT3 scene worldwide. The same car can be 1st somewhere and dead last somewhere else, all thanks to BoP.

    To make things even worse to determine what the real performance of a car is, there's the topic regarding tires. Sure, there is a minimum value for things such as pressure that tire suppliers advise you not to go below at, but at the same time each manufacturer builds tires in different ways for different needs. Some need to supply tires for sprint races that last no longer than 1 hour per round, some need to supply tires that can be double and triple-stinted in long distance races and anything in between.

    So far, the current tire manufacturers that are actively involved in the GT3 scene are Pirelli, Dunlop, Hankook, Continental and Michelin for the EU and USA regions, plus Bridgestone and Yokohama joining the party in the Asia region (some GT3s in GT300).

    Different tires translates in different performances even on the same car. A Ferrari racing with Michelin tires in Europe will behave slightly different compared to a virtually identical Ferrari racing with Continental tires in the US. Because tires are different, BoP is different, and both cars, while being virtually identical need to be prepared in different ways.

    And then there's weather. Britan sucks and is always cold and rains every day, but your "detective" work doesn't take the weather conditions into consideration. A car could be faster or slower depending on whether or not the track is cold or hot, whether the air temperature is high or low.

    And then there's traffic. Most of the GT3 championships pride themselves with huge grids and lot of cars. But when it comes to qualifying, it's literally impossible to get a clean lap when navigating through 40+ cars of traffic. It's easy to time attack like your life depends on it if you're the only douchebag on the track, but you can lose a lot of time if during your fastest lap you have to avoid and overtake slower cars you encounter on the track. Some are on the straights, some in the corners, some are in their own timed laps, some are slowing down and so on. Getting a clear lap is impossible. Unless you do like Blancpain GT and adopt the super pole formula. At spa the pole time dropped by almost 3 full seconds between the "official" qualifying where all 63 cars were on track at the same time and the 2nd session when only the top 25 were on track. Much less traffic effectively translated in much faster lap times.

    And last but not least there's the human factor. Sure, You can go around all day long saying this and that, but some laptimes might be faster or slower depending on who's physically behind the wheel. The exact same car shared by a Pro and an Am will be faster for the former and slower for the latter.

    All of this results in the matter of how accurate the McLaren in rF2 really is. You can't know for sure, because:

    A) You have never driven one in real life anyway so you can't judge
    B) You have no idea what BoP the rF2 McLaren is actually based on.

    You can compare laptimes all day long like a little kid if you want, but it won't matter. It never will.

    What you would need in order to gain some sort of credibility for your allegations is a Top Gear-style comparison with one McLaren from each major series that is running with a different BoP, the same track, the same conditions, the same tires and the same driver. Then you would probably get a more realistic answer.

    But as it stands, your article doesn't account for literally anything I've written above. You just compare laptimes and assume things based on that without understanding how many external factors influence them. Effectively, laptimes should be last thing to compare.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I enjoyed your response more than the article. Although after the author claimed an insight on how an MC12 GT1 would handle after a few laps in a wescar I gave up


          1. Sportsman late models have roughly the same power to weight as a GT3 entry, whereas super lates (bigger engine, a bit more lenient suspension rules) are among the same lines as a GT1 car. Most sportsman cars can be converted to super lates with bolt-on parts so they’re not going to drive in a fundamentally different manner.


            1. I agree that the MC12 is too slow in AC and should go at least 3 sec. faster around Spa, but comparing the handling of “your” car with a setup just made for left-hand corners with any car that supposed to tackle both is utter bullshit and comparing lap-times in the GT3-class as well for the reasons above.


      1. The MC12 is infamous for being the car that effectively killed GT1. It was so much better than the competition that they first tried many things to slow it down as much as possible and then also tried to BoP it into the ground. When that failed aswell, they came up with the half-excuse of GT1 in general being too expensive and killed the class after one last hurrah at Le Mans in 2010 or around that time.

        And there is no way in hell a GT1 car as technologically advanced as the MC12 was (a race version of the Ferrari Enzo) would be comparable with something like a brick that is technologically stuck in the late ’60s. The latter has a lot of power, but as an old ad campaign for Pirelli said, “Power is nothing without control”. Take those obsolete things to real race tracks and see how long they last.


    2. Half of what you said is apologism. Repetition ad infinitum is going to give a racing driver half a second at best over a normal qualifying format attempt.

      How lenght of the track is measured is irrelevant. The track is the same and as long as the start and the finish are in the same place the laptime is going to be the same. Lenght measurement does only interfere with avg speeds calculations, and that’s not even being discussed.

      Traffic is not a common factor in a quali lap either. Veeeery rarely a competitor best time is influenced by cars around him, cars not on a hotlap get off the way properly 90% of the time and drivers don’t start hotlaps close to another car pushing too. They’re not passing (in the racing sense) anyone on quali laps, and they’re not having to change their lines either unless they catch someone daydreaming in a outlap, which happens rarely.

      Your only decent points are track conditions and BoP. And the best you can do is theorize about these things being WAY off and causing huge deviations, which is very unlikely.

      track is always going to be pretty decent in a crowded quali session (clean on line and rubbered, only temps can be far from ideal). BoP changes most often have as target changing the car pace a second at best (and I’m generous) in average lenght tracks.

      If laptimes are 3 seconds off, and the track was dry in both cases, your simulation is shit, period.


      1. You are the one who has no idea on what he’s talking about as you don’t seem to have any knowledge of what GT3 racing is really like.

        Spa 24 Hours qualifying. 63 cars on track at the same time in both day and night sessions, featuring Pro, Am and Gent drivers all circulating toghether:

        All cars are effectively “racing” as everybody is pushing trying to get a timed lap and nobody is slowing down, resulting in 4-5 cars driving in tandem on multiple occasions, forced to overtake as if they were in racing conditions. In the night session that is even worse.

        And you completely missed the point regarding track measurements. If the measurement in miles follows the optimal racing line (instead of the absolute center at all times, as FIA does instead) and is used as reference for the virtual track, the developer/modder will effectively build a shorter track, based on something that is not necessarily inaccurate, but that at the same times doesn’t reflect the true lenght and width of a track from flag to flag.

        All the rest I wrote applies aswell whether you like it or not. Just because you don’t THINK it’s true because you don’t understand how real GT3 racing works, it doesn’t mean it actually isn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Nice to see someone who knows what they’re talking about. I wonder what simulator Ferrari F1 is using? Apparently the data generated was so accurate that it proved crucial in getting the car set up properly for the Hungaroring:

          Oh wait, I think I already know (unless they’ve changed since 2014):

          People whose entire IRL driving experience consists of borrowing the keys to moms minivan can shit on rF2 all they like, but ISI based sims are being used at the very pinnacle of motorsports to deliver race-winning results.

          Right down to taking the exact settings off the simulated car and putting them into Vettels SF70H. That is fucking impressive.


          1. To be fair, rF Pro is just the base, Ferrari and all the other F1 teams have their own proprietary software running on top of it aswell so it’s effectively an enhanced version of rF Pro which is an already enhanced version of rF1/rF2.

            But yes, while real drivers don’t like using it because obviously those freaks prefer the thrill of the real cars, it effectively translates 1:1 from the virtual road to the real one. And when it costs you upwards to €30.000 per hour to operate that simulator (going by Dallara figures), you would expect such a result. Otherwise it would be a pretty bad ROI, wouldn’t it?

            For Hungary, Giovinazzi after wrecking the Hass in FP1 on friday took a flight back to Italy and spent the rest of the day lapping in the simulator so that the engineers in Maranello could analyze and then send the data back to the team in Hungary overnight and dramatically improve the car for saturday and then of course sunday. As it doesn’t involve wind tunnel usage, it goes around the private testing allowance restrictions the teams have so it was a smart move on their part, something that all the other teams could do aswell if only they weren’t so busy waging war against each other within their own garages.

            Of course, rF Pro customers like Ferrari have the luxury of having access to a virtually unlimited source of laser scanned tracks provided by the affiliated company that operates it as a contractor, something that would make the AC/pC fanboys cream in their panties so it all adds up.

            But of course it’s better to accuse developers of being bad at their job rather than actually learning a thing or two about real racing.


            1. you talk like rf2 and rfpro are the same. You don’t get the ferrari physics nor the laserscanned content available to rfpro owners in your rf2 game. You get the studio397/isi physics, not the physics developed by the manufacturers. You think they can’t change the hardcoded physics with the rfpro software? What manufacturers are looking for in rfpro are the laserscanned tracks and the low latency streaming between graphics and driving.

              So if you want to say that, say it like this “something that would make the AC/pC/rf2 fanboys cream in their panties so it all adds up.”

              Nice try rf2 fanboy.


              1. We weren’t talking about rF2.

                We were talking about the application of rF Pro in the real world, where it counts. Commercial version for the public of rF wasn’t the subject of the topic. Nor were the other games. The reference to AC/pC was a reference to all the wankers such as yourself who brag here and there about the laser scanned tracks in their games when in reality they still have to rely on tiny selections to choose from, especially in the case of AC, while in theory rF1 and rF2 could potentially have hundreds of them in the blink of an eye, if only it was possible to obtain them. As far as pure file structure goes, they’re essentially the same thing and could be a drag&drop kind of process, theoretically. But it’s how they work with the physics engine that is different, for obvious reasons. Although, again, none of this was the topic of the discussion Kondor and I were having and you had to pull it out of your ass for no apparent reason other than trying to be a smartass only to fail miserably.

                You should go back to school as you seem so lack some very basic reading comprehension skills, which are essential if you want to interact with other people in a social enviroment.

                And while you’re at it, go back to your basement aswell, your mother didn’t allow you to come out.


                1. I’d rather have the tiny selection of AC’s laserscanned tracks than then “so close yet so far” tracks from rfpro that could, but will never reach rf2.

                  Nice try rf2 troll.


                2. I don’t need to go back to school for reading comprehension because I instantly saw through your manipulative speech directed to AC/pC community. You’re trying to downplay the already laserscanned tracks in AC, and totally ignore the fact that rf2 has none. So which is better for the actual players? The already laserscanned tracks in AC of popular race tracks or the many f1 laserscanned tracks from rfpro which will never reach any actual players? For how manipulative you are I suspect your answer will be the later.

                  Despite you being an rf2 fanboy and a troll, I don’t advise you to go back to your basement, I’d rather you see the light of the sun once in a while, to get some vitamin D.

                  Next time you don’t want others to come into your discussion, strict yourself to talk only about the main subject. Don’t throw references which can attract other people to the discussion just because you can’t contain your inner trolling attitude. So basically you caused this deviation.


                  1. I’m sorry your life is so pathetic you feel the need to get so easily triggered on the internet just to actually feel something.


                    1. i dont know how pathetic my life is, but how much is yours if your joy online is to trigger people? That says much more.

                      You’re still ignoring the fact that rf2 has no laserscanned tracks and put faith that somehow rfpro will give all their tracks to studio69.

                      I’d rather take the ones AC offers to their players now than have the wishful thinking rfpro will donate their ls tracks to rf1/rf2. Talk about some next level delusion… but is expected from prc fans.


                    2. You could’ve said it sooner that you were a retard.

                      Where have I said that I wish for rF Pro assets to be shared publically? Because I didn’t, nor I expressed any similar wishful thinking. I’m quite happy with what I have currently, I wouldn’t say no to some extra things, but I have a life and won’t kill myself just because my favourite game is lacking laser scanned tracks (although it isn’t, I have 3 or 4 of them, had them for years now and they’ve been publically available for a decade).

                      And no, I don’t need AC and its laser scanned tracks if the physics is total garbage, same for pC. Why waste my money on games that have more dlcs than a hooker has venereal diseases. Nor I need rF2 as I don’t even have rF2 and I don’t get where you think I own a copy of it. You just assume things, but you have no idea what you’re talking about or who you’re talking to. You’re the one all worked up about it, if you get triggered so easily, it’s not my problem nor I care about you.

                      Can’t wait for your next wank. Ops, I meant rant. Ops, I meant really thoroughly thought and expressed opinion. Or maybe I don’t. Actually, I don’t. So save yourself some time and don’t bother answering further. Because your opinion becomes irrelevant the exact moment you attack people because they don’t like what you do. Play what you want. Wank yourself to sleep over what you want. We don’t care about you.


  14. Whether 397 studio outsourced anything? guys you really have to drive this car yourself and compaire it with that Simtek’s GT3 mod’s same car. I race simtek’s mod in a league and I know exactly how their cars behave on track and respond to certain setup adjustments. And guess what, this”official” 650s replicated exactly what I experenced with that simtek mod’s 650s (and also their Ferrari 488) . Drive them at Silverstone circuit. FFB is different, performance wise is different, but you will be suprised to find that these cars have exactly the same strange behaviors with its tyres and suspension that you haven’t experienced in any other RF2 cars.

    I don’t have a Aessto Corsa, but I’ve heard someone claiming this car drives exactly like its counter part in AC too. The other thing comes to mind is that simtek makes cars for both AC and RF2.

    And, why didn’t they reveal what the 4 other GT3 cars are? Someone has got 4 cars ready to go without obtaining the license?

    Drive some laps and draw your conclusion.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Wait “exhaust gasses fed back into the engine”? Are you referring to the car being turbocharged or does the GT3 650S actually retain EGR from the street car?


      1. The nerds (hi) will point out the the exhaust just goes through the hot (or post) side of a turbine, causing the cold (or pre) side to spin, pulling in more fresh air. The exhaust itself doesn’t actually come back “into” the engine.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. How much pressure do the manufacturers apply to the developers to make their cars faster than the competition in each game? Remember when Forza 3 had an R8 on the cover and AWD was overpowered for example? Look at how protective the big 3 were over TV shows comparing the P1, LaF & 918. Lots of money to be made in the fastest image. Aston Martin sales since the LM GTE win….

    Look at this another way and the marketing managers for each company is getting a pat on the back for selling the same licence many times. Just be glad we don’t have to pay the same premium in cost as the real cars…yet.


  17. Too much grip, too expensive, and two years late. Thermo-mechanical physical tire models shouldn’t be taken seriously as a simulation.


      1. To be clear, the exhaust isn’t being fed back into the engine in any way. A turbo works by harnessing otherwise-wasted thermal energy to rotate a compressor (via a turbine), which then pressurizes the intake tract. More air=More power.

        An ICE is really just a fairly inefficient (40% or so at best) adiabatic air pump, and a turbo is a way of making it slightly less inefficient. Cars *do* recirculate exhaust gas via an EGR (depends on the car), but this has nothing to do with turbocharging (it’s for emissions).

        My impression was that you were trying to say “turbo” in a clever way, and it came out a bit wrong. Sort of like saying “engine in the back”, when we both know the car is mid-engined.

        Tomato, Tomatto and all that.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. I’m just interested in the truth as best we can determine, as such, if the FACTS dictate a rewriting then so be it.
    The fact is, the historians claim that Jews have been pogrom-ed 80-90 times over the centuries…..did it ever occur to you to consider this pattern, or do you pretend that xtians are just plain mad and must regularly destroy the lives of gypsies and jews to satiate barbaric gawd?

    If YOU’RE such a great bloke and defender of the weak and innocent, why aren’t the authorities that represent you?…maybe there’s been good reasons to remove these people, maybe not, but no other group seems to have this type of history….gee, I wonder what it could be??

    I strongly recommend that everyone reads “bad war”…..this exonerates the Hitler regime, and exposes the zionists as having control of the media= control of politicians and foreign policy.

    The zionist bankers forced Hitler to invade Poland after years of tormenting….the straw that broke the camels back was the danzig massacre, at which point Hitler set about invading Poland simply to liberate Danzig.

    Hitler was extremely intelligent, I’m sure he knew of the strong possibility that this would lead to a european war, however, due to the mass slaughter of germans in danzig, he had no choice but to take Poland.

    The banks{owned by Zionists} love wars as they make TRILLIONS….the Iraq/Afghan wars cost approx $7 TRILLION, and they would’ve made huge amounts back in WW2 doing the same thing, ie, funding everyone, cause they get paid back by each country, no matter whether you’re on the winning or losing side…..the ultimate business model!!!

    Jews are also brainwashed by zionist propaganda, and stupidly attacked and killed German soldiers and people at the behest of the zionist media, once again forcing Hitler to do something radical, ie, imprison many of them and formulate the final solution, ie, the total removal{not extermination}, but migration of jews from germany good and proper.

    So no, I don’t blame or hate all Jews, and I accept 250-750 000 died during ww2, but this wasn’t a holocaust by number or machination….you can’t blame germany for poor standards during wartime, as such those imprisoned will suffer as the war winds down.


  19. The 2 images are exactly the same indeed… except for the windscreen wipers. And the L and P buttons on the steering wheel. Identical like you wouldn’t believe it.


  20. Already paid $80 for this game years ago and it never lived up to the original. New guys have been working on it for a while now and its still in beta i think. Time to move on. Will not spend another cent on it as it already over for this game for me.


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

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s