Assetto Corsa Respectful Comparison

Don't roll ya eyes at me, toddle off and find me a post where I do what you did, personally attack someone for simply stating what they think will be.


Well go on.

While we are at it what car do you think is the best in any sim ever ? do you even know ?
 
DurgeDriven said:
Don't roll ya eyes at me, toddle off and find me a post where I do what you did, personally attack someone for simply stating what they think will be.


Well go on.
Click to expand...
There was 0 personal attack going on, you literally claimed to know what the future was going to bring hence he was intrested and asked you about it.
Choose your words wisely before going of the handle ;)
 
LOL, some funny responses, thanks for those.

And Tim, no, I buy the worst tires I can get for my C63, actually. Somewhere along the line, probably when I managed to actually race Skips and do things like car control clinics, I actually learned proper car control. I've had a lot of cars sideways since but never lost one. There's always next time though. :)

Oh and no I did not have a mullet. Maybe half a mullet, but we're not going to talk about that.
 
Last edited:
DurgeDriven

"What I do know is I think rF2 Historics are the best cars ever to be put in a sim and that did not take a whole lot of soul searching. "

Durge I agree, I think the biggest strength of ISI is physics / ffb , their cars are top, the historics in rf2 are so high in quality.

No other sim car in any sim matches it IMO
 
Matt Sentell said:
LOL, some funny responses, thanks for those.

And Tim, no, I buy the worst tires I can get for my C63, actually. Somewhere along the line, probably when I managed to actually race Skips and do things like car control clinics, I actually learned proper car control. I've had a lot of cars sideways since but never lost one. There's always next time though. :)

Oh and no I did not have a mullet. Maybe half a mullet, but we're not going to talk about that.
Click to expand...
Modern Merc's dont count, can't turn off TC completely... Conformist

j/k offcourse :D
 
I mean notes. False cognate.

edit: it reminds me when i use to hide behind a guitar and antagonize with anyone in a 100 meters radius.
 
if you want to be absolute save. [video=youtube;FLYMfF8kkL0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FLYMfF8kkL0[/video]:)
 
Timpie Claessens said:
Modern Merc's dont count, can't turn off TC completely... Conformist

j/k offcourse :D
Click to expand...

You've been misinformed, my friend. That would defeat the entire purpose of me buying it.

The three modes demonstrated. You're looking for ESP Off, around the 1:00 mark:


But you're right that up until the C63 in 2008 modern Mercs didn't fully deactivate TC. I believe it was the first model that did. Not sure about others. I'm not a Merc fanboy or anything, I just like under-tired torque-monsters.
 
Esteve Rueda said:
The problem is when a developer says It matches in the sim... and they tested It with alien drivers (I can't find now the post, but they literally said the had drivers with alien skills, refering to top simracing drivers). I think It is just to lie, not to believe yours is better, just lie. Lap times doesn't really matter in any sim, only as guide, but not as objetive.
Click to expand...


AFAIK they say the sim matches the telemetry that is a completely different think.

When ISI says "our Marussia matches the telemetry" I strongly believe them.
When Kunos says "our Tatuus matched the telemetry" I have no reason not to believe them.

On an italian forum Luca Sodano (which is the AC suond developer and, incidentally, a very fast simdriver...) told that in AC he overlapped the Tatuus real times easily.
He also claimed a 1:53 at Imola with KTM, a "mere" ten second faster than a real video found on youtube (and, FWIW ten seconds faster than me:eek:).

About lap times I completely agree with Tim.
 
Hedlund_90 said:
When you choose your screen resolution in game settings, there are options for screen refresh rate... You have multiple options for each resolution, like:

1920x1080 59hz
1920x1080 60 hz
1920x1080 99hz
1920x1080 119hz

wierd... because with all different resolutions we have a very long list.

Probably you already know this but anyway... :p Otherwise I don't know
Click to expand...

You should have a 120hz monitor. Mine is 60hz and I can see 4 times the exact same line: 1920x1080 59hz in their menu ;) I need to try all those choices in case the one I took cap my fps!


Mmmm, so nobody have a T500RS and played with AC settings?
 
Esteve Rueda said:
:facepalm:

What time? I did 1 second faster than Costa for now, after around 45 laps at the same track, Vallelunga. 1:32.250 for now. Bit edited setup, never felt like playing with grip.
Click to expand...

Man... What about go to F1, you're too fast for simulators? They're all wrong except rF2, which matches to your unbelievable speed. Give a break!
 
Matt Sentell said:
So when I hear people talk about how safe and understeery and hard to spin a street car is, I always wonder, how many times have they wrecked or lost control of one? I suspect the answer is often none, because I was enough of an idiot to actually take cars up to the limit of adhesion. But if it's none, then how can they be so certain?
Click to expand...

That's the why people do track-days. You don't need to be a stupid car wrecker to known what's needed to spin a car.
 
My observation. I don't know what kind of a physicist, but I was much surprised.
1. the car is in neutral position, not rolls down hill
2. can move without the rotation of the wheels
3. Not able to overcome turn blocked internal tyres, car somehow goes past the turning.
4. I did the front dampers & ARB, and vehicle began to break away two internal wheels and fall under the asphalt outer. As if the main point of support not tire, and a Central axis. What is that physics is this? :)
I write through a translator, so it may not sound correct

 
The last one was funny.
BTW have you guys driven the cars backwards? I have done that with the tech demo too as it was released but I just thought it is only me thinking crap.
Can somebody who is playing it try driving cars backwards and tell me if there is anything weird or is it just me again? Try to steer in different directions at different speeds.
I am not nitpicking on AC here, I am just curious about that.
 
Just spent 8 hrs playing AC. It's 7:30 AM and I need to go to sleep so not going to get into too many details right now, but 1 thing is for sure, I am so underwhelmed.

It has it's good points, and it has it's bad points. It is not this all conquering sim to end all other sims.

The FFB is boring, all it tells me is some mid corner understeer, some loading up as you turn it more and some kerbs. I don't get the feeling of 1000 things communicating to me at once like I get in RFactor and like you do in real life, but this is just FFB, I'm sure this can easily but changed and tuned. The problem is some of the pure physics.

The rear slides out pretty nice but you get lots of weird wobble back and forth almost as if you over correct or something. You sometimes run wide because it seems like on the latter part of the exit it's almost like speed sensitivity kicks in and the car needs more lock to keep the line you were running even though you aren't understeering. If you aren't pushing the tyres enough or if you over trail brake then you get this really really weird un-connected just weird over turn in of the car to the apex, you'll be past the apex and into the grass, it's supposed to be simulating oversteer from over trailbraking but instead of the back coming around it's more of an over eagerness to turn Into the corner, its as if some invisible hand came down and grabbed the car and rotated it, it's not a natural rear stepping out at all.

There is a lot of blandness going on in order, I believe, to give players the impression of a stable car but it also comes at a cost, it seems, to the fidelity of the physics. It's not sim-cade, well I don't want to say it's sim-cade, but it's not 100% pure sim in my opinion, there is no way. It has nothing to do with harder to drive, easier to drive, etc. Like esteve and others have said, it goes much further than this.
 
Wow those KILL BILL videos are pretty alarming about of AC physics. I have never ever witnessed such anomalies with rF1 / rF2. But it could also be that the AC physics engine is solid in the end, but the cars are made completely wrong. This can be done in rF simulations as well, some odd values to physics files and everything becomes very interesting.
 
Matt Sentell said:
I'll leave you with another story, which some of you might find amusing (or possibly offensive) as well as interesting....
Click to expand...
Nice post.
People would never question reality. If something unexpected happens, then your first thoughts are "what caused this?". You get a sense of "enlightment" as you just learned something new, gained new experience.

If something unexpected happens in simulation, we often tend to question the simulation. Simply because... id did something else that what we expected :)
We use our expectations and our understanding of real world as reference. This is a mistake. One needs to be enough open-minded not to jump to conclusions.

This doesn't mean we cannot be skeptical sometimes. Not jumping to conclusions doesn't mean we trust the simulation unconditionally.

Jerry Luis said:
I think it was a metaphor. No one can really hide behind a keyboard.
Click to expand...
Man, you made my day! :)
 
Yes many great thing are happening with AC but still.........

Do me a favor and just swing up the car on the sraight by alternating steering left and right. Try different angles and also go crazy by super fast inputs. If you still say it's naturall and believable, than i really can't help you guy's.

Another test routine : keep a high gear, try with 5th to roll very slow something around 5km/h, press full throttle, the car won't acc to high speeds but it moves slowly. Hold on the full throttle input and do the same again.

The car is able to dance and reaches movements i've never seen on a real car before. Something wrong with the suspension physic imho, but hey what do we know.
 
Last edited:
speed1 said:
Yes many great thing are happening with AC but still.........

Do me a favor and just swing up the car on the sraight by alternating steering left and right. Try different angles and also go crazy by super fast inputs. If you still say it's naturall and believable, than i really can't help you guy's.
Click to expand...
in the second part of the video i did a bit :)
 
77780gufr.gif
 
if somebody starts posting the Rfactor 2 physics errors in build 49 the list could be kilometric.

if somebody starts posting the Rfactor 2 graphycal errors in build 49 the list could be mulargametric.

so two years after Rfactor is becoming a great sim,and there are a lot of missing features , so it will be better.

in two years the list of mods for rfactor 1 was BIG, that means something , and the current content made by the community for rFactor 2 means something too.


the thing is, that something makes me think that we will not have to wait two years to see Asseto corsa in all his glory.

Regards.
 
Gonzas said:
in build 49
Click to expand...
When Build 49 came out, we were lucky enough to be compared to other sims (iRacing mainly, released 4 years before rF2 first was) in the same way AC is now being compared to rF2 after 2. Which shows exactly how silly this all is. I haven't see a single sim to sim comparison in a forum that really had any base in fairness or even really that considered enough aspects to make sense, because it's not possible. So why do people do it? Absolutely no idea. :)

AC is AC.
rF2 is rF2.

They'll grow at different rates, they'll have different features, you'll possibly like one more than the other, someone will feel the opposite to you. There, I think I summed it up in a single sentence. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top