Raceroom is not that great...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by sbtm, Jan 12, 2018.

  1. nate

    nate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +875 / 0 / -0
    Sure, updating old cars is and has always been on the list of things to do.

    But when you literally have 1 physics dev working on things... you are never going to overhaul 100+ cars in a timely fashion.

    It took months just for the gt3 cars to be overhauled, and you all know how similar those are to each other. Researching each specific car, finding data, interpreting and implementing that data, first rounds of testing, tweaking based on feedback, more rounds of changes, and finally balancing... is not something you do in a week.

    You can complain that 'everything' should be updated at the same time, but you cannot argue reality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +803 / 0 / -0
    Then there should not have been any physics updates done at all since early 2015 when I came to RR. ;)

    It should be done because us Germans know that "das Bessere ist der Feind des Guten!" ;) (What is better is the enemy of what is just good).

    Did you read where I said
    Nowhere I implied it would be a fast and easy task, and that it must all be done immediately and all at once. But it should be done, and constant work should be done on it, all the time - else one never gets through with it. Steter Tropfen höhlt den Stein! ;) Lets say modern DTMs /2014-2016) in Spring, Classic Touring and DTM92 cars in Summer, the Audis and maybe the modern WTCCs in Autumn, and so on. Nobody said: everything immediately, at once, simultaneously.

    And if you have not noticedit, the various different physics seem to have become a major complaint by non-RR users about RR, with refering to the older standards being an argument time and again raised to criticise RR in genersal, saying that these are what RR feels like. Its in Raceroom'S most natural interest to lift its driving experience to the best level it can offer. And Hodgkinson's driving experience trumps the older models.

    Driving is beside dogfighting the essence of a race simulator.

    I think I have good reasons why in RR I just drive GT3 anymore, currently.
     
  3. Christian G

    Christian G Topological Agitator Beta tester

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2,411 / 0 / -0
    Hehe... so what now, no updates unless they're applied to all cars at once? :) It's a bit of a lost debate, cause on a basic level we all want the same thing. I'd love having an updated TC or DTM '92 tomorrow, but the simple fact is that it can't be done, especially while at the same time people (sometimes the same people that ask for car updates) are eagerly asking for new stuff, like GT4 or TCR cars. And I'd love to have those tomorrow as well. :D
    The point is that cars are always sold "as is" and everybody is free to make their minds up by test driving them till they're certain they are happy with what they'll be getting. That's why I don't get statements like "what about the people how bought because of DTM '92", because that's one of the few advantages of the micro transaction system, you don't have to pay for 300 Skylines in order to get those 10 cars you're interested in.
    And RR's development history should be prove that they are doing it. Yes, there are those few cars/classes that haven't been updated so far, but as you mentioned some of those cars are still hanging in thin air when it comes to class coherence. But we shouldn't ignore that many classes (including most of the free content) have been updated in the not so distant past, and that work is continued. It just takes time.

    And I'd also like to point out that, while I do share everybody's enthusiasm about the latest physics/FFB improvements, it is not Alex alone who created all that out of thin air. All his work is building on the foundation that has been laid over the past years by Karsten and Marko. Those guys have put thousands of hours into getting RR's physics to the point where we're at and I think they've done quite excellent.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. nate

    nate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +875 / 0 / -0
    And if you have not noticed it, every single sim has the exact same issue RR has. Every single game has cars on various standards of physics. No exceptions.

    As Christian already pointed out... this is already the case. The TT Cups have been updated already, the DTM cars have been updated, the GT3 cars, etc... there are a few lingering classes, and that's just how it is. I would like everything to be on modern physics, but that isnt always possible. As soon as you update 1 class, everything before it would be considered out of date by some.

    And too many people entirely disregard that... no one is promised updates. You are not guaranteed updates. The condition of the content at the time of your purchase is what you are buying. You are not buying hopes and dreams that may occur in the future, but rather the tangible product that is currently before you that you can test in the store.

    Content is updated because it is in the best interest of the devs to keep a high standard for all content, which helps sell the game.

    Very good point here. The foundation has been laid down, and Alex has done an exceptional job with his first go at implementing physics for the GT3 cars (and Porsches). I think RR is in safe hands moving forward.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +803 / 0 / -0
    What you quote me with there was a reply to you, in the meaning of "by your logivc then there shouldnt have been any updates since 2015". By ripping it out of context you give what I said a twist.

    The point is that somewhere earlier you incdicated you see no need to chnage older DTM 92 as an exmaple and I objected to that nd said that all car classes should be aimed of basing on one and the same physics model, in the end. I do not know why you rpeateldy tell me that one cannot have it all at once, when i repeatedly have said that this is not demanded, but what it is wanted is constant work on this chnage instead. Please, read back what I actually said, you give me quite some replies to things I neither said nor implied.

    Thats a bit too loose. I count three physics standards currently, so what are we talkign about here? There is the latest, lets call it post-Hodgkinson, it incoludes all GT3 and probbaly the three Porsches. There is the immediate status before that, lets call it pre-Hodgkinson, most car classes are on this current mainstream" standard. There are a few that still have not been updated to even this pre-Hodgkionson standard, these are the ones that have the oldest physics. We could also, to adapt to RR-critic's temrinology a bit :), call them, int he sequence by which i just emntijend them: "pointy and alive", "a bit pointy and much less alive, very grippy", and "motorboats on water, floaty, too grippy".

    Its fair to mention the older guys, yes. But fact is that Alex Hodgkinson is the one who really has cut through what I would call a Gordian knot, he freed the GT3 cars in a way that few have believed possible. He was the one who really made the difference there, by finding some values or variables that were made ill use of before, or havign some weired numbers put in. He described it in one of the videos with him, his firts or second appearance.

    The result was that the GT3 cars were almost not recognised by me anymore. No more driving on rails, no more Pattex-super-grip. No other car added to Raceroom since 2015 felt that differently, they all are in principle just variations of one and the same. I often said that in RR the variety, the range of different car behaviour feels more limited compared to for example AC. In GT3, all cars more or less felt the same, with only very minor, differences - in AC, the cars are quite different in feeling and feedback. But we now have a situation in RR's GT3 where cars have tremendously jumped upwards towards more diversity and complexity shown in their behaviour.
     
  6. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +803 / 0 / -0
    In AC, all cars are on the same tyre (verison 10) and physics model, as far as I am aware. Both chnaged severla times over the past three years, where developed further, until they feel they could not or need not pushing it any further. There are not three diffefent physics models in use currently, like in RR.

    Again my quesiton, what are we talking of: the status before or after Hodgkinson impacted at Sector3? See the three models I mentione done post above. As far as I know and remembr to have read, all modern DTRM and Audi cars are not on the level the GT3 now is on, but are on the physics status before. What I argue for is to have constant work done on bringing these to the same physics model/stanrad, like GT3, same for the ither car classes. And sicne some people seem to not understand that, again: I do not say it must all done at oence and immediately and at the same time, but that instead one should make sure that just constant work is being done on this shift, so that changes get released one by one.

    Well, then lets shut down the forum and stop talking and have no community platform runnign at all. ;)
    I am a hardcore capitalist, and nobody must explain to me the cirncukstances of a deal, I know myself wuite well what market mechanisms work and what they are. Yes, you buy "as is", still they advertise that work is done and development, and sometimes ask for people'S feedback, cerai9nly scan the publishing of views and opinions, and they do themsekves a faovur by doing that, if they want to stay attractive for future buyers, because the compeiton doe snot sleep and if Sector3 would not adapt to requests and demands by customer,s then somebody else will. You see, it makes perfect sense therefore that we - and I - say what we think would be good to have. My opinion is that Hoddgkinson'S physics in GT3 are the way Raceroom's other cars have to aim at, this is s superior standard compared to the physics ther egave been before since spring 2015. It strengthens RR's stand agauinst the competition, and that is good and necessary, for Raceroom seems to have longterm plans ith this platform. For the sam ereaosn they are eying replacmeent of the grpoahics engine in the long run. You could now say again that we bought the gfx engine that RR currently gets shipped with and that we have no claim for getting another one. Still they are adapting to this idea of theirs. I wonder why?!

    And there oyu say it yourself. I do not understand your earlir argument you raised. Dont you contradict yourself...?! :)

    Anyway, I stop here, this is running in circles and seems to split hairs.
     
  7. Don Rudi

    Don Rudi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    Ratings:
    +284 / 0 / -0
    Maybe they call it the same physics version, but it is undeniable, that there are pretty big differences in physics quality spread over the AC cars.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. David_Wright

    David_Wright Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0
    All sims have inconsistencies in the physics. If you produce physics for 100 cars then some will be better than others due to errors, inaccurate data, lack of data etc. However this is not the same as having different standards IMO. With RR we are talking about inconsistencies due to changes in the approach to creating the physics. With RR we have early physics which were not intended to be "hardcore", intermediate physics done by the same person which were intended to be hardcore, and finally new physics done by a new person bringing new things to the table such as a different way of estimating/calculating inertia. This is unique among current sims.

    AC have updated all cars to the current tyre model and as far as I'm aware have updated all the cars with revised inertia values. AC does have the advantage that one person has done all the physics.

    PC2 cars all have their revised tyre model to the best of my knowledge. As with all sims, some cars seem better than others, but I see no pattern that the new cars (those not in PC1) are clearly better than the cars that were in PC1.

    Reiza do regularly update their older cars and its not generally considered that the new cars are significantly better than the original cars.

    RF2 is "guilty" of introducing changes to the tyre model which are not retrospectively applied to earlier cars.

    Can't comment on iRacing as I don't own it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  9. Christian G

    Christian G Topological Agitator Beta tester

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2,411 / 0 / -0
    It was the very first sentence you wrote, how can I rip that out of context? I got your point, but we both know it's a construed one because you're saying "if cars are sold "as is", once they are updated I got sth I didn't spend money on and I had no choice in whether to have it updated or not". And that's true, but it's true for most, if not all software products. I just made a tounge in cheek comment to highlight my disapproval with the "all or nothing at all" viewpoint (which, I'm aware, is not what you personally implied).
    Ok, but why do you want to keep debating my personal view? I've read your post(s) well, no worries. But you shouldn't read things into what I say. I said to me most classic cars ('92, TC, GTO, GT5) are just fine the way they are, and I'm not the only one saying that. If you disagree, fine by me. But because - as you already pointed out - there's always room for improvement, of course I wouldn't object having them updated once more at some point, but for me it's not as high a priority, that's all.
    You're deducting a lot about what goes on behind the scenes from what's been said publicly, but, as always, that's just part of the truth. At their time the approaches taken where the right thing to do with what was present to work with. And afaIk Karsten and especially Marko are still involved in the development of the physics, so I just want to give credit to whom it belongs.
    Just like myself, I'm sure, Nate doesn't take offense buy you guys speaking your minds and giving feedback. It's that if you say things like that, it sounds like you're trying to question the (legal/moral/ethical) propriety of the studio's actions. And that's the general point we keep trying to bring across, nobody should buy anything based on the assumption that certain actions will be taken in the future (which is what some of the comments in here and elsewhere sound like), unless you're aware of and willing to take the chance that your expectations could be disappointed.
     
  10. ChatCureuil

    ChatCureuil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Ratings:
    +308 / 0 / -0
    @nate you shouldn't have said that anything after september 2015 is on "new" physics, it's confusing some people who think that DTM 16' or other "old" classes uses same physics as GT3's.
    There's more than 2 physics models, isn't it ? The latest one concerns only GT3 and Cup/Cayman, if I'm not mistaken.
     
  11. Tuborg

    Tuborg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2015
    Ratings:
    +456 / 0 / -0
    Interesting discussion! I put a "Like" on all posts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +803 / 0 / -0
    "Undeniable?" :) C'mon.

    Well, as far as I know there is just one physics model in AC now, it is the same for all. All differences you perceive in feedback from cars and car behaviour, must therefore result form this engine being fed with variables set to different values, therefore. And this Aris did to model the differences between cars which indeed should feel sopmetimes more differnt, sometimes more similiar. Depending on the cars you pick for comparison.

    Its one tyre model, version 10. Its one physics model. Both seem to represent the final state of thing sin AC, since it was indicated that they plan to move on with new plans for another project. In other words, it is expected that w eget only patching of bugs and issues form now on, no more active development beyond the content and feature list there is now.

    I am saying this since two years, that AC models a wider variety in car behaviour within one class than Raceroom did in the past, in the same class, cars feel way more uniform and similiar. I would even go so far and say that even in the GT3 class redone by Hodgkinson the variety still is not as wide as GT3 cars have in AC. But he has made a giant leap forward in that regard, and the class feels far more interesting and offers more variation between cars now, therefore. IMO it really is a little revolution in the Raceroomverse, that is why I give him so much credit, and did so from release on. He should continue with redesigning the physics for other cars, too. Obviously he knows damn well what he is doing, and why. The results speak volumes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. sbtm

    sbtm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2016
    Ratings:
    +591 / 0 / -0
    what makes you confident that different GT3 cars drive so much different like in AC? Couldn't it be that differences are more subtle in the end? I find the GT3 differences in Raceroom pretty obvious.
    I think in real life they're not THAT far away from each others one might think. In the end we cannot say if they vary as much as in AC or if it's a bit more subtle like in R3E. In pcars2 i have mixed feelings, for example I cannot keep the AMG GT3 on track properly while the 488 GT3 is boring to drive compared to the AMG. And to be honest I gave up on the GT3 class in pc2 as it doesn't give me the excitement I get somewhere else. And what bugs me most is that the race cars in PC2 seem to have super soft suspension, you never see so much suspension work in real life. They're wonky and wobbling around with nose diving very deep while braking and nose raising high when accelerating. In corners the chassis rolls like crazy... so... it's weird for me since race cars are built to be stiff and stable with not much change in center of gravity (but with all the chassis wobbling that's what happens in PC2). Sorry for OT :D
     
  14. OlivierMDVY

    OlivierMDVY Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -0
    It looks like the cars have too much grip on the grass?
     
  15. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +803 / 0 / -0
    I do not know, and I did not say this or that is "realistic". I have not driven the real cars and so I cannot tell at all.

    All I said is that the GT3 cars in AC offer a wider range of variety in their feel and behaviour, whereas in RR the cars felt not similair bot were far closer to each other pre-Hodgkisnon, and now are morre alive, points, less grippy and show more differences tio each other since püost-Hodgkinson.

    For exmaple, I do not like to drive the Mercedes GT3 or AMG GT3 in AC. I just cannot get along with this car, its way of braking, I suck at bringing it up to speed and keeping the swing in corners. Its a mutual antipathy, I assume. :D Now, in Raceroom before the latest physics ptaching, I did not care that much, the car was much easier to control than its AC pendant, and was grippy and a bit like on rails anyway like most cars in RR - but now with the new physics it is behaving much the same way like in AC. I hate it! LOL I do not like to drive it in Raceroom now - for basically the same reasons why I do not like it in AC. :) Both sims' car offer the same basic characteristics now, but AC accentuates them a bit more. But they are such that you can relatively easily recognise them in both sims. Another example would be the McLaren MP4. In the old time :), both cars were quite different in both sims, now they are quite similiar, and because of the reasons I like the car in the one sim, I now also prfer it in the other sim. The MP4 I would easily reocngise lbiodnly in both sims now, too, like the Mercedes.

    Alex and Aris approached the same objects and did so with competence, it seems to me, and thats why they finally end up with quite similiar results. Their work'S resaults confirm each other, I assume. And both have RL racing experience. Thats a compliment for them both, and a compliment for both sim's physics engines that obviously both are capable to bring their ideas to life and translate them into a perceivable experience for the players. Before the new GT3 cars, I was not sure whether maybe RR's physics engine was not capable enough, it was good and pleasant, obviously I liked it a lot, else I would not be here, it just was not en par with the best out there, which to me is AC's physics. But the new GT3s now show that the physics engine is more capable than was to be seen earlier. It just was "under-used", so to speak, not optimally made use of.

    I think it is important to focus on these things, since physics, FFB, driving experience are prime arguments for players when comparing various race sims. Any sim competing on the market cannot be good enough in these regards. Focus must be on these aspects.
     
  16. nate

    nate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +875 / 0 / -0
    @Skybird

    I will try to sum this up briefly. You are ignorant to how physics are developed and implemented. Meaning, you dont necessarily understand the process or how the work is done. Not that this is bad at all, but some of the points you are making just dont make sense, and I will never be able to get through and make you understand how it works unless you 'see it for yourself' so to speak.

    This is a great example of the above. Just because cars are on a certain tire model, doesnt mean the underlying physics of the car are on the same 'standard' as you put it. Suspension, aero, drivetrain, etc. all play a massive role in how the car behaves.

    When you develop a car, over time you will learn new ways to implement the physics or how to handle certain aspects of the physics of the car you are working on. So, over time, the methods used to implement certain aspects of the physics may be different, thus resulting in a slightly different end result.

    For cars to be on the exact same 'standard' of physics would require a lot of work being done on every single existing car to implement those new techniques. And no game does this.

    You can feel how you want about AC, but the devs themselves even talk about how they dont work on old content, tire model last year and glaring bugs notwithstanding.

    wut?

    Holy logical fallacy batman.

    I didnt say anything about a graphics engine... And you already know RR is a long term project. So instead of creating a new game over a period of a few years, they are slowly implementing major feature changes. This is irrelevant though since I was talking about the cars physics.

    I tried to preface your comment by pointing this out earlier :)

    When people talk about the different levels of physics in RR, 99% of the time they are solely referring to the old floaty feeling vs. the current non-floaty, more precise feeling. That's all.

    Of course, if you bring in a new physics developer, their interpretation is going to be different from the previous devs... so that instantly creates a new divide, or a new 'standard'.

    That however, is irrelevant in my point, since the newest cars (GT3 overhaul & Porsches) dont have the old floaty behavior.

    My comment you quoted was referring to having differences in the physics 'standards' not that every sim had as big of a difference as the new vs old stuff in RR.

    And every game objectively does. rF2 has the cpm vs non-cpm stuff. iR has a new tire model nearly every season. AC has their newest stuff like the Ferrari's that feel different than the oldest base content stuff. etc.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Skybird

    Skybird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2015
    Ratings:
    +803 / 0 / -0
    [​IMG]
    Bon voyage, thread.
     
  18. sbtm

    sbtm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2016
    Ratings:
    +591 / 0 / -0
    my beautiful thread... :(
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. Christian G

    Christian G Topological Agitator Beta tester

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2,411 / 0 / -0
    It's run its course, time to move on. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. rad

    rad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Ratings:
    +458 / 0 / -0
    07-07-2015
    Touring Classics

    20-10-2015

    Aquila CR 1 Sports GT
    Silhouette Class
    BMW M1 Procar
    GTR3 Class

    31-03-2016

    Audi 90 GTO
    GTR3 Class
    Prototype cars

    26-04-2016

    Group 5 class
    Ford Mustang GT3

    So I guess it's not that impossible