Opinions about sim vs. sim physics on different forums.

Few days ago on iRacing forum someone started a thread "
Anyone agree we need better physics?"

Obviously he was comparing it to AC and rFactor 2 physics.

On iRacing forum 80-90% disagreed with him saying, that iRacing physics is closer to reality.
Based on what I read on this forum I would say, that 80-90% of people would agree, that AC's physics is better than iR (and any other sim).
I guess the same would apply to rF forum.

Opening post.

http://members.iracing.com/jforum/posts/list/3304320.page

Some responses:

I also have read some opinions here, that people play in iRacing just because of superior MP and competition.
After reading above topic I wouldn't be so sure and I think people decide to drive this or that sim mainly because of their physics preferences. The rest has lower priority.
AC is a good example i think.

 

Choose what you like and have fun.

 

If real world cars drove and handled anything like the physics in iracing suggest, I wouldn't let my wife drive across the street to the store, ever.

I've never understood how if you take an awesome performance car, and then add even more performance parts, it somehow magically turns into an undrivable mess that doesn't want to do anything you ask of it and is only happy when it spins out and faces the wrong way; yet that is exactly what the Mustang (and pretty much every other car in iracing) does.

Like pretty much all of us, I don't know exactly how a GT2 car feels exactly since I have never driven one; but I do know that anybody with a driving permit can jump in a Miata and make lap after lap at pretty much any track in the world while driving it at around 80%. Yet it can take days before you make your first consecutive three laps without spinning in iracing. Seems to me that something isn't right.

In the real world, half of any given GT3 grid is made up of guys that have a bigger wallet than actual talent and most of them go an entire season without so much as a spin. In iracing it isn't unheard of to wreck the car leaving pit road.

But anyways, be glad there are so many choices and play whatever feels closest to what you think is closest to real life based on your driving experiences. Or whatever fills the bill for your own personal enjoyment.

 

I learned long ago that discussing sim physics is often like talking about sound quality between audiophiles. It's completely subjective and at some level of discussion there is no data to back it up, ony "feelings".

My solution to this problem is the same as this:

 

Well, this debate will never end.

We could objectively test the cars in different sims and compare telemetry to the real thing. However with differences in road surface grip, temperature, tire compounds it'll not be a perfect comparison. But that's a start.

On top of the difficulty of doing that, all sims translate the car's responses via sound and ffb. The tuning of how the tire squeals, when it squeals, and how the ffb reacts to load changes and bumps, and how the developer chooses to translate the car's momentum through the ffb wheel, all of those changes how one feels about the sim.

The only thing you can do is to get pro drivers who drive the specific car/track combos and have them hold a vote. 99% of the sim racers has never driven a race car at the limit on the tracks they race on, so their (and thus, OUR) opinion just don't mean much.

Personally I've spent over $400 on iracing over the years and I'm here driving AC exclusively now. To me it feels great, and I like road cars in general more anyway.

 

I simply don't trust iRacing. I joined there one year ago, had been driving mx5, it was hard to master, but I got used to it. Then at the end of the summer new build came in and the mx5 has changed drastically. It was a totally different car with much more believable physics. I liked it, but what was that bizarre thing I had been driving before? And that was only a year ago. If their physics were right, there wouldn't be a such huge difference between the builds. Also notice how you start iRacing and you always need at least a couple of laps to warm up to get used to it? With AC I just jump in and everything feels where it should.

 

Really the problem I had with iRacing wasn't that you can spin the car - that's obviously plausible - but the notion that the 'limit' comes as close to spinning as possible. It feels like racing along the edge of a cliff - the better drivers know more precisely where the edge is, but anyone who goes past it falls off. Whereas AC's got a little leeway on both sides - you can be sliding the tires too much, going a little too hot into corners, and you don't crash, you just scrub seconds off your time.

In truth I don't care that much about the physics - I just wasn't into the whole "buy tracks for $12 apiece if you want to keep competing in the same series" money grubbing. For the last 4-5 weeks of my subscription I couldn't race in anything except the fixed MX-5 series, so I didn't renew.

 

Battlefield is better than Call of Duty.

aka: who cares?

 

All I will add to the conversation is that when I went to a direct drive servo things changed in iracing for me, it got so much better.

It's perhaps that the physics are good but not matched by the average ffb wheels we are using. When I went DD it was so much easier to drive the cars closer to the edge. In a way it felt easier to drive them like AC.

Who knows, perhaps the FFB in AC is somehow different and exaggerated to give better feedback and therefore better driving in AC while iracing is more pure but feels dumbed down on the wheel make it harder to drive. Don't take my words of 'pure' etc as meaning one better than the other but I can certainly say that iracing with real world forces is great to drive.

 

So what about the physics change from 1.0 RC to 1.0 here in AC ?
Some say, that the change in physics between these builds was quite drammatic ?
In that case you also should not trust AC developers since the physics changed so much and apparently they were right before.

Some would say, that they need some at least a couple of laps here in AC to warm up to get used to it and wiht NFS or Mario Cart they just jump in and and drive without spinning or going of the road.

 

The physics changed in AC? I know a couple parameters were altered, but to me the change is so subtle as to be close to unnoticeable. Maybe if I went back and played the tech preview I would notice some kind of night and day difference, but I really doubt it. To me there is less difference in feel between AC and Netkar Pro than there was when iracing went to their new tire model.

No matter which one is 'more real' the difference is still huge, kind of like the difference between watching porn and participating.

 

As far as realism goes anecdotal evidence has always been way overpresented in the sim racing world. People who have spun a car with broken shocks on a track day come back to poor rfactor mod and claim the icy spins are realistic. Someone who drifts in real life may find games like lfs good. Someone who has not much experience with many sims but has lots of expereince in real life may just say that the sim he knows the best and drives the most is the most realistic one.

People also have many kind of ideas what is realistic. For someone who has poor skills in real race car (but may have driven lots) may think that cars are snappy, nervous and easy to spin. Someone with natural ability who has driven mostly race cars prepared by pro teams (good quality cars with good tires) may have the opposite experiences. People also tend to evaluate their experiences based on how good they are at it. Driving a bad sim with a known car/track combo you are inclined to find a deeper connection with the sim early on compared to having to drive totally new track for example. Real race car drivers are also just humans and can get emotionally attached to one sim just like the typical sim racer with "one sim - my sim to rule them all" attitude.

In the end the best way to say which cars are realistic is to compare telemetry. Do controlled runs like moose avoidance test or slalom and just compare the data. Nobody has even done this except f1 teams and other real teams with access to real race cars.

I disagree with this. I don't think you need to choose. Just make informed decisions when buying games and sims, try all of them that you find interesting. At least try the free demos. If one is clearly the best then focus on that. But in real life all sims have strengths and weaknesses.

Choosing just one is a mistake imho. Unless one is a sim racer and has been sim racer for decades and has tried all the sims then I'd guess picking one make sense but if one has started to play with sims just this year then obviously it is a mistake not to try them all. Rf2, rf1, rrre, game stockcar, iracing. Or even the console racers like gran turismos, forzas and pcars. At most you will learn that you don't like certain things. Many sims can offer good experiences and forcing yourself to choose just one will only make yourself miss out on good experiences in other sims that you may have enjoyed.

 

Pretty sure he meant 'Choose one sim based on a qualified decision and enjoy it' and not 'Pick one randomly and be happy'

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

Correction - they didn't change the physics - they changed the tyre model and on some cars even put completely new tyres (laferrari?). Any car of that performance level will feel dramatically different with different tyres.
Other than that all main characteristics of all cars remained the same. Not like they were a mess before - they just got refined, especially tyres.

 

I don't know about you, but I'm waiting for the next (unreleased) racing sim to trump them all with better physics than AC, rF2, iRacing and R3E combined, and better everything else too. Actually it will be so much better that people will say: "I won't drive in real life again, this sim is more real than the real thing!"



/s

 

One more thing - I am yet to try the newest rf2 demo - last one I tried was that horrible camaro GT of some sort on a short US track I believe it was lime rock and it was horrible. It was unbelievably underivable and wanted to point its nose backwards on every bend.
Since than, I have heard, rf2 has improved a lot but let me tell you - I've never felt uncomfortable with AC even on 0.2.

 

I've never actually played iRacing so I'm not qualified to argue for one camp or the other regarding physics, but one thing that might attract players to iRacing is the fact that they have pro racers vouching for it. Of course these pro racers are sponsored by iRacing using money from their subscribers, which is why a track costs $12 or w/e. Pro racers aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them and I'm sure their contract will not allow them to be seen to be playing other sims.
That's the main reason I stay away from it, not because of the costs but because a pro racer will say anything for a sponsorship deal whether it's true or not. The same goes for the iRacing community, they've invested a whole lot of money and time in their game and won't easily let someone tell them that another sim is 'better'.... much like the AC community

 

So they did exactly the same thing that iRacing does from time to time. They update their tyres which influence the behaviour of the cars. All main characteristics of the cars remain the same.

Can you prove it ?
I know that is not the case.
Pro simracers have their own sponsors who don't have anything to do with iRacing.
The only money they can have from iRacing is when they win them in their top tier series like "iRacing Nascar Peak Antifreeze series" or Grand prix series.

 

Did you not read the post about the mx5? The guy said they drove like 2 completely different cars and one of them has got to be a mess compared to real life. You can't have 2 right answers...