Automobilista

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Thug-Life, Feb 28, 2016.

  1. Travis Petrovic

    Travis Petrovic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Ratings:
    +53 / 0
    Seems like I'm always quoting James but only because we know it other from a different forum.
    Interesting.

    I know AMS has the Stock Car drivers test and approve their physics and with one driver being Rubens Barrichello, perhaps he's given his thoughts on a few of the F1 cars - the rest are based off whatever data Niels has at his disposal.

    R3E has DTM drivers direct feedback for the DTM Experiences, KW Suspension and ADAC drivers direct feedback for the ADAC Experiences and GT3 class cars, Audi TT drivers direct feedback for the Audi TT and manufacturer data for the other real world vehicles. I don't see how these vehicles are anything other than authentic given they were built around the feedback of the drivers who race them for a living.

    As beta testers, we read how much time and effort is put into R3E by Karsten and other Sector 3 staff on all the vehicles, including the silhouette cars which are largely based off various real car data. Part of me wonders if R3E started its life as it stands today rather than the sim-lite it once was, would attitudes towards it be different?
    This will hopefully change soon as there are plently of changes behind the scenes with R3E's FFB and I think it's part of the perception issue R3E has. That said, AMS and Stock Car Extreme before it has sublime out of the box FFB.
    Nothing wrong stating AMS or rF2 are, in your opinion, more pure sims as it's the subjective part of sim racing! We all make and pass judgements on cars we'll never sit in let alone drive based on our own subjective ideas and notions.

    I love all of the sims you've mentioned for different reasons and would include Assetto Corsa into the list too.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Elva

    Elva Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2015
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0
    To me it feels like R3E has some added input lag which makes the cars feel unresponsive and handle like boats.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. James Cook

    James Cook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2015
    Ratings:
    +1,008 / 0
    @Travis Petrovic

    Yep, as you said, it's all subjective and I'm definitely not one to go down the difficulty = realism route when evaluating car physics. That said, there are a few ways in which AMS feels a little more alive and often punishing if approached with poor technique. AMS feels as if it has better suspension modelling and therefore more pronounced weight-shifting which demands more technique under braking. Also I feel AMS is more punishing of excursions onto slippery surfaces like grass and astroturf runoff. Personally I feel I can get away with some things in R3E that I can't in AMS.

    But you know more than me on what's to come. R3E is getting better with every update, if very slowly. I'm sure it's going to continue to advance as a simulator and completely shake off the mistakes of the past. But until R3E can rival the feature set and FFB of AMS then it will remain my second favourite sim for now.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. MsportDan

    MsportDan Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    James i 100% agree. theres still lots of teething problems with rre in the most important area physics and ffb. until then I'm not sure anyone can call this a hardcore/purist sim at all.. immersion wise the best out there!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. ::SKRO::

    ::SKRO:: Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Ratings:
    +971 / 0
    Soo this ^
     
  6. MsportDan

    MsportDan Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    mind you i haven't played rre for a while and i had a quick race with the tts at Zolder and it was a blast. Theres no need to slag off this title yes it might not be as "hardcore" but its very fun and immersive nevertheless!!!

    I'm personally looking fwd to the next big patch and i prey its more sim features and ffb fixes.!!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Thug-Life

    Thug-Life Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2015
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0
    New Barcelona by Patrick...

     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. James Cook

    James Cook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2015
    Ratings:
    +1,008 / 0
    It's really good. I like having the National layout for the lower powered cars. Had a great Marcas race there last night.

    Sounds like Bathurst is next.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +713 / 0
    You may want to consider what the guys from Kunos have said about the differences and nature of feedback they get from drivers - and engineers. I posted that link in the AC threat before, but it is relevant for the points you want to make here, and so I repeat it and highlight the important part. As Stefano emphasises, he finds the feedback of engineers easier to implement, and prefers to talk the innocence of straight numbers than driver's subjective descriptions of what they think, feel and claim. Numbers don't lie.

    Still - numbers alone might not be good enough. ;)

    http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/kunos-simulazioni-exclusive-interview-part-1.118481/

    You see, engineers (numbers) and drivers (sensations, feelings) are two very different things already, and sometimes the two do not easily match in their statements. Also a lot depends on the attitude of the test drivers, whether they are seriously focussed or see it more as a game they agreed to spend some time with: and for just a game "things might be good enough". In the dev streams by S3, you could see that the quality of feedback given by various drivers differs significantly. Some were more advertising that game than analysing. Some talked deeper stuff and reflected some background info. One driver's feedback is not the same like the other's. Their attitudes, and maybe also their contract obligations with RR, differ.

    There are differences in the way sims handle physics, else same car model would handle the same way in two different sims - but with the cars you can compare between RR and AC, this is not the case, they are quite different in handling, the whole physics model is. The important thing is that not just one road leads to Rome, but several, you can have two different sims and different physics, and nevertheless find both delivering a pleasant driving experience and a believable illusion of "realistic" physics. To achieve that, the whole physics suite must be coherent in itself, avoiding a wild mix of highs and lows in quality, the latter always spoiling the illusion again. I think this is one of the most important things there are in designing physics.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. le_poilu

    le_poilu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2015
    Ratings:
    +272 / 0
    You make a point here.
    In my opinion, the main thing about drivers feedback is to know what interest the driver give to simracing.
    Some drivers will only give feedback based on their IRL experience, because they don't have any experience in simracing. They can't make the bridge between the sim and the real.. they will only try to reproduce what they do IRL (breaking point, racing lines, etc). Something that can be done even with a mouse and keyboard in theory. There's no "feeling" in there. We may call them " the old school guys" :)

    Others, that as more used to simracing, and that actually play simracing games will have a more nuanced feedback as they know the difference between IRL and Sim. The will be more used to the codes of simracing (the FFB things, etc) and will be more efficient to translate their IRL experience in something usefull for the devs.
    In R3E we have the example of Kelvin VDL (ADAC champion) witch is also part of the redline simracing team. In F1, Max Verstappen is also in this team and use a lot of simracing to train itself.
    Those guys know the 2 worlds, and are in my opinion the better bridge between IRL and Sim.

    Engineer may have the datas, but at the end it's the driver that's behind the wheel .. until we have autonomous racing cars :p
     
  11. Ernie

    Ernie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Ratings:
    +303 / 0
    This reminds me of this video, where Nigel Mansell is playing Race07.

    Nigel, as an "old school guy" can't really drive the sim. He has big problems to adapt, because he's missing most of the things only the real experience can give. (G-forces, the "seat of the pants" feeling, etc.)
    He was a fantastic F1 driver, but my guess is, he wouldn't be that helpful for the development of a racing sim.
     
  12. le_poilu

    le_poilu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2015
    Ratings:
    +272 / 0

    TBH, the FOV is so badly setup here that I don't see any driver manage to do well at first shoot.


    @SVG BIOSPORT Can you please stop spamming topic with your stuff ?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  13. Christian Göpfert

    Christian Göpfert Topological Agitator Beta tester

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2,197 / 0
    The quality of feedback only depends on the interviewers skill.
    If you ask the person the right questions their feedback will almost always be useful (unless they fool around or give wrong answers on purpose).

    And that thing about not using driver feedback but numbers only... I'm a numbers guy, but that is an absurd statement from Kunos. How many times have any of us encountered things in real life that went different than (or even opposite to) what the numbers would have suggested beforehand? And I'm not only talking about my bank account after a night out, I'm talking about technical stuff. ;)

    But maybe that explains why some people describe AC as feeling "clinical".
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2016
  14. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +713 / 0
    ^If you read the full interview you could see that they are aware of that. Aris even says something like that there are still some things in physics that nobody in the world really understands in full.

    The "clinical" claim you refer to is almost always used to describe the sober, clinical atmosphere of the track environment (needs to be seen what they change there, all older tracks get visually reworked currently). The physics are not what is meant by this.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  15. Christian Göpfert

    Christian Göpfert Topological Agitator Beta tester

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2,197 / 0
    That's why I said feel, not look. And I read that "claim" (if it feels like that then that's what the person feels, right? Just like some "claim" RR feels like a boat.) a couple times.
     
  16. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +713 / 0
    ^ You are the first guy I ever met raising that claim in that context - and I am with AC since one year before they even released the tech demo. Physics get called a lot by some: too vivid, too slippery, too difficult, too much "canned effects", too light-feeling, too much this or too much that. But calling them "clinical", I assume in the meaning of "sterile" - that's new to me. I know that claim only with regard to track immersion, or lack of that, and some cars' sound.

    Needless to point out that i would disagree with you there anyway. :D

    However, I did not want to derail this thread on behalf of AC, I just quoted that interview since the passages I quoted to me seem relevant to this thread's discussion currently.
     
  17. James Cook

    James Cook Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2015
    Ratings:
    +1,008 / 0
    I don't believe we are at a point (yet) where car behaviour can be fully simulated by numbers alone. We're not yet at that level of complexity and processing power. Driver input surely helps in filling in the blanks, giving a car 'soul' if you like. As others have said, it stands to reason that the best people to do this are race drivers with a keen interest in sim racing. They understand things from both sides.

    Rubens Barrichello is one of those guys. I don't know how much involvement he has had with Reiza but someone with as long a F1 career as he had plus experience of both Brazilian stocks cars and the Marcas series - he surely must be very useful to Reiza.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Christian Göpfert

    Christian Göpfert Topological Agitator Beta tester

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2,197 / 0
    Well, you live and you learn.
    That's what it felt like to me, lifeless, predictable, technical, clinical, like a robot spewed it out after being fed some of the numbers.
    But then I'm just a RR fanboy who doesn't know what he's talking about, so I wouldn't worry about that "claim" too much. :relaxed:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +713 / 0
    Still, as Stefano said in the quoted passage, the feedback by engineers is easier to implement into a sim. If real world engineers already can find it difficult to grab the "felt sensation" or "subjective thing" the driver talks about, it probably is not a far-fetched guess that you have to expect same kind of occassional miscommunication between driver and sim-programmer. The coder and the engineer have an advantage there: numbers don't lie. The quoted passage described quite well what can happenwhen you have very differently sim-approachign drivers in one room. And so much depends on the attitude and the focus of the driver, what he focusses on in the sim. I find it believable that younger drivers who grew up with consoles and PC simulators, can be the more valuable resource there than older drivers with more real world experience - but not used to use console games/sims.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +713 / 0
    Sounds to me you are more about AI and race events, than physics. If so, I would even agree with you . AC as a sim an race event feels more lifeless and sterile, and Raceroom has the better atmosphere and race event presenmtation and more interesting AI. Its the reaosn why I now play both sims, it was the horrible AI of AC one year ago that made me look in other places, too. But its the physics and car modelling of AC that stopped me from abandoning AC for Raceroom - so that now I drive both, for different reasons. I do not try to be diplomatic when saying I enjoy both - I mean it serious.