ACC and false advertisement

I never rated Aris physics work that high, as well as the whole Kunos strategy of big words and big ass kissing the "community" stance, but it seems that not even with the chance of doing something with the help of a real series and real drivers and teams they can produce something decent. This is what a racing driver had to say about the game as of now:

Quote :

I'm surprised at the amount of good reviews this has at the moment. I'm in for the long term here and I'm sure it'll be a polished sim by the end.

I was really looking forward to getting behind the wheel - however I was horrified at the handling of the cars and how unrealistic the cars felt.

I drove the Huracan GT3 car (which I've raced in real life at Sebring 12h) and the car felt like it was on ice and constantly sliding with TC engaging in the weirdest way.

I find this sim even harder than driving the cars in real life. I've applied setups from real-world tests I've done in an effort to try and cure some of the handling issues but to no avail.

I feel ACC has a long way to go yet before the handling becomes 'public friendly' as even a real racing driver is having issues completing 1-2 laps without crashing due to characteristics that aren't there in real life

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197991230945/recommended/805550/?fbclid=IwAR2Gy3aFgH0TZ_y1f-z6S0GO7kzQYdrcVRV_qR53wQ0KW9-_D_Mq-NK0fOE

I drove that myself when it came out, it felt lifeless, the tires gave no warnings and no feedback, a step backwards in a lot of directions. They are still changing how inertias of the vehicle are calculated in the last update, proving once again that they have no clue what they are doing, and are after whatever the "community" tells them it feels "nice".

But to me the most serious point is when he says that his setup changes don't produce the necessary effect. Now i happen to know that there is pretty detailed info about GT3 cars around, and if you have access to real team data, then this sort of thing should NOT be happening.

Once again i find myself amazed about how can people whose day job is this do a worse product than us, amateurs , who do this in our spare time with a lot less resources...

Exactly Richard and this is why even today Mercedes Ferrari, Redbull  still use rfactor / with moteq to test there new F1 cars
lately i been aproached to make the Spa Francorchamps (current layout  rf2 version) working in rf1 for that exact purpose.
i tell you converting tracks from Asetto / rf2 back to rf1 gives amazing results and
thats why im stick to it however its a pain to filter out and rename  the correct materials but once that is done the perfect simulator is there, with accurate physics and today graphics!

Francois, why you don't like rf2? Or AMS? I recently toyed around with F1 91 in AMS, and once i changed the physics, the results are amazing. I think somethings are a step forward, and AMS physics engine really is a bit more advanced.

F1 teams use rF Pro, there is a bit of difference.

The main things where AMS really went backwards compared to rF in my opinion are:

- Graphics engine, as it looks horribly bright and the post-effects are not correctly done. A poor attempt at making it look more modern.
- Menu/Series filters etc. 

Other than that, it is rFactor 1.5, and some things like turbo, flatspots, race line, tow to garage etc are good realism enhancements. Pity rFactor was not further developed by ISI in that regard, there was no real need for an rF2, the less so an abandoned one.

As groundbreaking as it was, rF always felt a bit incomplete...


...just my very humble opinion...

There's something else I don't like in AMS, but that could be a mod/series physics thing. For whatever reason I lock brakes more easier than in rfactor, there is a too thin line between blocking and not braking enough, I find it harder to hover around the threshold braking point.

Alberto Ibañez wrote:

There's something else I don't like in AMS, but that could be a mod/series physics thing. For whatever reason I lock brakes more easier than in rfactor, there is a too thin line between blocking and not braking enough, I find it harder to hover around the threshold braking point.

Have you tried adjusting your brake axis sensitivity?
Default is 50%, and from the way I read in the Reiza forums, that means 50% physical pedal travel, will equal 100% travel in game.  0% sensitivity on an axis will mean that it matches 1:1 with physical travel.  

I had this issue in AMS as well, with braking, and with being too abrupt back into the throttle.



ETA: This short thread on the Reiza forum is where AMS dev explains it.

Interesting, in rfactor and previous ISI games it was stated clearly that 50% provides the absolute linear response. Never tried to fiddle with that, but indeed the answer might be there.

That honestly makes no sense to me. I have 50% sensitivity in AMS and my pedal travel is perfectly linear. However, a difference is that rF has sensitivity from 0-200% while AMS has 0-100%.
Meaning, if you have 50% sensitivity in AMS, you'd have 100% in rF. The effect is the same, as far as I know

Pascal Mikula wrote:

That honestly makes no sense to me. I have 50% sensitivity in AMS and my pedal travel is perfectly linear. However, a difference is that rF has sensitivity from 0-200% while AMS has 0-100%.
Meaning, if you have 50% sensitivity in AMS, you'd have 100% in rF. The effect is the same, as far as I know

And that's exactly what I was told when I told some guys in my league this same stuff that Dave has now confirmed.  They're the same ones I watch lock up in every other corner, constantly...so, I mean....

Easiest way to test this (and obviously it's going to be a personalized setting) is do a bunch of laps with throttle and brake set to 0% sensitivity (this is, barring you've adjusted in deadzones, btw)
Now move it back to 50% sensitivity.  Now tell me you cannot discern the difference.  It's very noticeable once taken to both extremes of the spectrum.

ETA: I've actually got this slightly wrong as well. So 50% sensitivity is actually linear. But, the middle slider would need to be at 100% for that to be the case...?....

Grrrr....it's not quite as straightforward as I thought.
Best best, just monkey around with it yourself, don't listen to others...
Use what feels good personally, and call it a day.

from that thread, he seems to say 2 different things. as you mention with the 50% -> 100% thing, then immediately after he contradicts himself with this....

"The Sensitivity column controls the linearity of the input. At 50% input will be linear, less than 50% will be less sensitive in the early part of the axis increasing more rapidly towards the end, more than 50% the opposite."

this is the way i experience it, at 50% sensitivity in ams (default), my inputs are perfectly linear, the ingame axis display and my physical pedal reach max at the same time. if yours isn't then something else is going on. im on a logitech g25, what are u using jason?

also, i dont know how much of an authority that poster has, sure it says admin, but is he really a dev? maybe he is, i have no idea, just questioning. doesn't make sense to have that contradiction in the same post, it sounds more to me like he was just trying to figure out a work around for the dude's issue to make the game "playable" with the hardware he had.

best,
dave

didn't see your update....

Jason Whited wrote:

ETA: I've actually got this slightly wrong as well. So 50% sensitivity is actually linear. But, the middle slider would need to be at 100% for that to be the case...?....

what middle slider? the top end deadzone slider? yea, that should be 100 for sure. if you have that at 50 that would explain exactly what you have going on. the "middle" slider is a top end limit for your axis travel, if you set it to 50 that would make your pedal 100% at only 50% travel

my 2 cents, use as close to default settings as possible. as long as "auto set rotation" is working for you, i would say default on all axis sensitivities, wheel rotation, steering lock.

David Jaques wrote:

didn't see your update....

Jason Whited wrote:

ETA:  I've actually got this slightly wrong as well.  So 50% sensitivity is actually linear.  But, the middle slider would need to be at 100% for that to be the case...?....

what middle slider?  the top end deadzone slider?  yea, that should be 100 for sure.  if you have that at 50 that would explain exactly what you have going on.  the "middle" slider is a top end limit for your axis travel, if you set it to 50 that would make your pedal 100% at only 50% travel

my 2 cents, use as close to default settings as possible.  as long as "auto set rotation" is working for you, i would say default on all axis sensitivities, wheel rotation, steering lock.  

Yes, Dave works for Reiza, it's not just a label on the forum.

I don't think he's contradicting himself as much as he's saying the middle slider is not so much a "top end dead zone" slider, as much as it is a "saturation level" slider.

I have that slider at default, which is 100%, for throttle.
Brake, I've got slightly modified....TP3A with conical mod, so in terms of travel, there's not much there.

Default, for me......I'll put it this way. Blindfold my ability to see those sliders. Put brake and throttle at defaults. I will drive it, lock up, and seemingly need TC to handle the throttle. (ie...it's WAY too touchy)

I turn the sensitivities to 0%....all that changes, regardless my ability to know about those changes. So something is definitely happening. I will agree though, I cannot always see this in pedal data.

It's probably only something that needs adjusting if it feels like brakes and/or throttle is coming on in some non linear way, or it just feels too sensitivity/like it's impossible to have fine, detailed control. But for me it helped (and not just a little. It's night and day change)

if you have a unique setup like that, my recommendation would be to put the sensitivities at 50%, and then adjust the deadzones to get the full range of travel you want. if its a load cell that isn't outputing a linear signal like a potentiometer, then you will just have to trial and error. for a potentiometer, setting the sensitivity to anything other than 50% will make it NOT linear.

David Jaques wrote:

if you have a unique setup like that, my recommendation would be to put the sensitivities at 50%, and then adjust the deadzones to get the full range of travel you want.  if its a load cell that isn't outputing a linear signal like a potentiometer, then you will just have to trial and error.  for a potentiometer, setting the sensitivity to anything other than 50% will make it NOT linear.

Nothing unique.

Set your throttle pedal axis to 0% sensitivity. Then press the throttle. What is happening on the left in the pedal overlay?

But, anyways. I was just passing along the information because I saw the mention of brake locking issues (lack of finer control was the description)...it's a problem I also had (on both braking with the conical mod) and throttle (no mod)....and I'd recently saw Dave mention that in the forum. And, as you can see by the next comment, the person there having issues was also helped by reducing sensitivity to 0-10%.

To each their own how they get it done, in the end though.

when i set it to 0% sensitivity, the input display initially moves up more slowly than my foot, then it ramps up and catches up until full travel (ie. non-linear). it doesn't change the top or bottom of the travel, its still 0% input when my foot is 0, and 100% input when my foot is 100. you are not describing the normal situation. you can tell people use what is best for you, but then you have everyone just messing with settings. unless something isn't working, defaults are perfect! you said it yourself, 50% is linear! reiza dave said 50% is linear.

saturation, or as i called it, top end deadzone, just different name, that should be 100.

now, if you are having a problem, like the input is showing 100% when your foot is 50, then something is going on. sure, if your device isn't outputing a good 0-100% signal, then use the deadzone/saturation so that 0% pedal = 0% input, and 100% pedal = 100% input. does adjusting the "saturation" help/change your issue? it is not sensitivity that needs adjusting, unless u want to use non-linearity to "bandaid" the core issue, then also like u said, to each their own.

so we hijacked this thread, can we continue this somewhere else? pm or start a new thread.

Alberto Ibañez wrote:

The main things where AMS really went backwards compared to rF in my opinion are:

- Graphics engine, as it looks horribly bright and the post-effects are not correctly done. A poor attempt at making it look more modern.
- Menu/Series filters etc. 

Other than that, it is rFactor 1.5, and some things like turbo, flatspots, race line, tow to garage etc are good realism enhancements. Pity rFactor was not further developed by ISI in that regard, there was no real need for an rF2, the less so an abandoned one.

IMO the worst thing about the whole AMS v. rF2 thing is that some mods/modders have little chance to make their content available for AMS if they don't fully understand how to accurately implement things like turbos, as Reiza is legally not allowed to support modding for their game (as far as I still know) since rF2 is supposed to be the oh so good modding platform! Now, i'm not trying to bash rF2 here but imo, AMS is the better game with a more familiar feel and, as of now, better mods. Plus, it runs fine on my crap-box of a laptop! 

I have the feeling that Reiza has entered a deadlock now, with AMS exhausting the development potential of rFactor (There's room for more, but not for something that justifies a whole new title) and rF2 unfinished. Their collaboration with the official rF2 development team is likely going to end in a full joint venture, I don't see Niels doing physics for AC, PC or any other of those franchises. The way forward for both of them is finishing what ISI left to die. If only they would implement instant compatibility with rF1 mods (Drop and play) that would already be a big boost for the community, but I think they are reluctant because a full open modding game would kil their official licensed content bundles and preclude any microtransactions model that allows milking the user.

The RF2 camp says they are already actually doing the opposite, making things even harder for modders, so that they just can boost their DLC sales. I don't see a good future for any of them at this point, even the promised reiza DLC is months behind schedule...

A polished AMS like rf2 version, with drag and drop features would indeed be ideal, but both studios showed they are not interested in that at this point...

Ther scary thing is that there is no visible short or mid term alternative for a league platform that allows full grid seasons with good physics, so after AMS becomes aged it's either iracing or one of the buggy, incomplete or shitty mainstream franchises (AC, PC, rF2).

The problem with leagues like ours, is the same problem with allowing easy modding to a not yet dead game, it doesn't bring money in.

Devs either want to sell content, or a racing service (iRacing). And almost nobody is in sim racing anymore without wanting to make money out of it. I dare to say we make the biggest FREE mods by far these days, be it cars or tracks.

Even leagues like race department ask for an entry fee.

The modding scene is only really strong in AC, and thats because the devs basically let the source code open now, and let the whole game and files totally open and documented. But even there, the best mods are now pay mods.

Do you think there is a chance to circumvent the bugs/limitations of the AC engine with properly done mods, or is it hopeless?

I have looked into the files of the cars, and there can be potential there, but i worry with what the best modders of AC said in terms of dampening limitations in the physics engine itself for example.

Aero wise, it seems more limited than rf1 even, but tire wise, it's a totally different approach.

But the important bit for us is the fact that you don't have flag rules for ovals for example, you dont have rolling starts, you don't have safety cars, etc etc...

There's always the ordinary road course races, with no oval rules, but the hardcoded limitations of the engine are something indeed worrying. And even more, the arrogant attitude of Kunos towards the community. Even if they thought they were right, what would be the problem of leaving more range open for people to tweak around instead of being limited? Oh yes, of course ... that someone could potentially prove they had been wrong

We will see when AMS is exhausted if there is life beyond it for the realistic racing community ...