Show 'Physics model' version info on car selection screen

Hence why all will never be pleased, some want to hop in a car and drive it like a Pro outta the box (d/load) then cry when they over steer all the time and some will spend more time on the settings page than in the sim, all cars in this sim can be made to go fast, unfortunately not all drivers can be made to do the same, we all have limitations but a lucky few (def not me) are naturals, ain't life a bitch!

 

Name one person that hasn't spent ages on the ffb page since owning RRe?

 

Me me me

 

I didn't ask that at all. All the old cars had that "delay" explain that. including hitech gt cars.

 

Me too

TBH : back in the days I messed a lot with ffb settings. But since the last majors improvement of the game on the ffb I barely touched anything after a short first setup time.

 

I agree with the older physics being a little sluggish when it comes to steering inputs but IMO the cars are in no way undriveable like some people make them out to be. I was actually surprised at how subtile the physics changes were at first but then came to appreciate the pointiness of the gte3 and dtm cars. This is what led to my initial disappointment with the m1. My expectation was a m1 with more direct steering with a wild back end but it ended up being softer than I expected and didn't match the feel of the new physics of the other modern cars. In hindsight this makes a lot of sense but, at the time, not what I was expecting.

I recenty picked up the gt2 pack radicals and dps and I'm enjoying them as they are even if I know there are other cars that feel better. That said I welcome any physics changes S3 considers an improvment especially for the gt2 class.

 

one thing I have found oddly enough is that with my new ffb settings, I dont need to change anything except vertical force when switching between the old and the new cars. the new cars need around 20% while the old ones need around 100% or more. aside from that, everything else works for me, more or less.

 

Being new to R3E, I'm still making my way through all the cars I've bought and so far I hadn't really encountered this floaty feel that seems to have plagued this title until relatively recent updates. I was starting to wonder if it was truly as bad as it's been reported.

Then last night I drove the Ford Mustang GT3... Holy hell. Ships ahoy! No wonder people complained about this game if thats a representation of how the game used to feel. My fault for not test driving before purchase, because I certainly wouldn't have bought it.

Yet the Mustang was an exception to me. From what I've spent most of my time driving so far has felt pretty damn good. Obviously some felt better than others and now I realize why.

And know that I know there is a disparity between 'old and new and in process of updating' it would be nice to know exactly what is what. For the time being I think the most expedient way of doing this would simply be to have a sticky thread with this info.

 

From what I understand is that all GT3 cars have the new physics, so the Mustang included.

/edit:
The Mustang is not in the GT3 pack. I wonder what physics it has.

 

If it is so easy to understand what car has the new phisyc there is no needed of any explanation because there is a button for testing all cars before buying. if you like it you buy it redardless the new or old physic, so where is the problem?

 

nah it is ... it just ain`t mustang .. he ment Ford GT GT3

 

no hes referring to 'american nationals' mustang gt3. it might still be on physics version 1 correct me if im wrong.

 

oh I didn`t register that car at all ... I`ll test it tomorrow, got no idea what physics it runs ... but if he liked it is probably not on old as GT3s were suffering extremly to floatiness (to the point you really couldn`t missed it) ..and if he liked it on old depite that, he would be amazed once he tries new ones

 

That's the one

I've got the Adac 2014 and GTR3 cars and I do enjoy them. Thats why I grabbed the Mustang when I was buying lots of stuff with the sales. At the time I didn't know about the different physics available so I just assumed the Mustang was of the same quality. Ah well. I just hope it gets an update one day.

Here's a good example how this knowledge can be useful:

"A new R3E customer, purchasing items in the New Year sales who is also unaware that differing levels of physics even exists amongst individual car packs, has tried and bought similar class cars (GT3) and others from varying categories (Audi TT, RF2, DTM 92, DTM 15, WCTT etc) and has so far liked what they have purchased; feels they now have enough an existing sample base to presume further purchases will be of a similar quality. Particularly when it's of the same class."

The "problem" here is that despite feeling they had already employed sufficient caveat emptor to ensure a 'good faith' purchase which would result in a satisfied outcome - the opposite occurred. The purchase was not satisfactory. The car is subjectively deemed by the customer unusable in its current state. They feel that not only have they wasted money, their good faith has been misplaced.

If, Via in-game foreknowledge of the existence of different physic states had been reasonably been brought to the customers attention, this negative outcome and potential ramifications; such as deciding not to spend further money with this company or advising others to do similar - could easily have been avoided.

Also:

"Aware that there are different physic states within the game, customers who wish to know for 'whatever reason' would find an in-game ability to access this knowledge a welcome addition".

Not only would it be satisfactory for those want the function, it also has the bonus of providing positive sentiment towards the company by individuals and the community. It can be successfully argued that this knowledge is does have a need.

 

The profound disparity between old/new vehicle physics and FFB, even in the free content, can be yet another source of frustration to newcomers, along with the pricing model and the always online requirement (I certainly found all three pretty confronting as a new user). I'd say there are 4 potential approaches to the problem, each with drawbacks:

1 - Update all cars to new physics = massive job probably not achievable in any reasonable time frame given development/budget considerations pointed out on this thread.

2 - Label old and new physics vehicles in menu and store = in-game acknowledgement that portions of the game are not all at the same standard.

3 - Keep current system = aggravate those who test/buy content only to find that a lot of it handles completely differently.

4 - Sticky thread in these forums as per smarteyeballs excellent post above = the quickest and easiest short term solution, but again an admission of sorts of inconsistency in the game.

 

That kinda contradicts itself. S3S is not selling insurance.

Quod esset demonstrandum.

I for one am rather pleased that the cars don't all handle the same...But that's probably just me being strange again.

 

I think you know what I meant mate. All of the newer physics cars have their own distinct handling and driving properties as expected, but are consistent to the degree that I don't immediately have to dive into the setup or FFB menus to bring the best out of them.

 

Of course I don't, cause otherwise that would mean I'm using satirical exaltation and exaggeration to highlight the exaggeratedness in those statements I commented on, and I don't deem myself profound enough to do any such thing. (*Pointing at signature and raising my glass*)

I admit it might have been a little uncalled for, but was it any more so than the statements I commented? You guys are making it sound like there's some fraudulent agenda at play, and I'm sorry but I don't see that. Every car that's on offer is sold as is and everybody can test-drive every vehicle before spending money on it to see if they like it or not.
Buying cars in a driving simulation under the assumption that they all handle the same would be quite a funny thing to do, don't you agree? And yes, I get what you actually mean, and I might even agree with you if the content was sold in one big pack without the possibility to test before buying. But for me the modular nature of R3E strikes this argument, firstly because you can test everything and secondly because it implies that not all content was released at the same point in time (which can also be seen quite easily in the game's changelogs).

It's almost like complaining that they are improving things and making progress in their approach. I know it's stupid but allow me to quote myself:

You catch my drift. The content on offer is what and as it is. It might get "updated", it might not (I believe the former, your 1st option, will happen). But if they were to update everything the instant they make some breakthrough while working on new stuff, they would never get anything done. And I still believe that it wouldn't really aid much to flag content for its physics/FFB model, again because of the modular nature also of the way it is created. What use would it be to end up with 6 or 10 or even more physics categories, would that reduce confusion or draw more paying customers?

 

Hi Christian. Sorry mate I wasn't trying to be confrontational, honest! I don't think there's any kind of fraudulent agenda, but I do maintain that the physics inconsistency across the cars (particularly given the high degree of consistency and quality of R3E content otherwise) is a potential cause of angst, particularly among new users. A way of giving new users a heads up on the content that they may be interested in strikes me as a good idea, not a slight against S3E.

You have stated numerous times on these forums that S3E admit to having released the product too early, and this mixed physics is probably another symptom of that. Hopefully in 12 months this conversation will be moot.

 

Neither was I and I appologize if it came across that way. You have to cut me some slack here, my folk are not known for their accessible sense of humour.

I think that such a statement would make things worse. Then it would sound just like some people already said they'd feel it would, that the developer says "look, here's this and that, but be aware that this this and this is not as "good" as this and this" which would stir even more confusion and lead to people avoiding I think.

I know it wasn't you, but to me statements like "unusable" just don't seem to fit at all.