They were converted, using the original rF1 as the base. Basically no research on the part of us to validate from rF1, yet it was correct, which means the rF1 version was.I mean to remember that I read somewhere that ISI made the physics for the Corvette.?
Same with the NSX, not?
Would be a shame if ISI haven´t double-checked data.
Double-confused, because I thought Niels never made any rF2-physics, what was pretty much the initial statement that leads to the topic NH.....
I'm willing to bet, besides the new tyre model, real turbos, and chassis flex, that RF2 is quite different than RF1.
What agenda might that be?
---------
Let me correct you there, by the way:
simracing wise, I have mainly worked (both as modder and as racing teams consultant) with ISIMotor2, and specifically with rF1, GSC and Race07. So, where that "gmotor1 is the greatest simulator in the whole wide..." oddity came from I have no idea, maybe you'll grace us with an explanation for that as well.
Many seem to equate "higher complexity" with higher accuracy and higher precision, which is, to anyone informed on the matter, a fallacy. I have discussed that very same issue several times in the past at RD and NoGrip, even participated in articles published on the matter, not going to bother to revisit it again. People choose to believe "more/bigger is better", or that "more complexity" yields better results or provides higher physical fidelity (actually, it usually is the opposite), and I fully disagree.
Yes...but no need to "tweak to fit the data" (once you have a reliable engine).
That's one of the virtues of ISIMotor2's tire model (and other seemingly "simple" sim packages I know of). When you have the data (yes, I have dealt with incomplete, noisy or simply out-of-range data, but it's not always like that), the so-called "simple" models usually and easily allow for a 1:1 correlation, whereas the more complex models (especially the "physical/theoretical" ones) often fail to deliver the same results. Cruden's CTO, myself and other developers/engineers, discussed this issue a couple of months ago, our conclusions are pretty much similar - Pacejka/empiric/semi-empirical work quite well and can get us a long way, even if it takes a LOT OF KNOWLEDGE to analyse/tweak/verify (the data packages).
Er...I "can't stand rF2"?! Why?
----
Ah, modders as "old dogs", how polite...
In the past 4 years or so, I have worked alongside with race car engineers, data analysts, tire engineers and drivers, in different platforms and with different tools (sim modules, data acqs, etc).
I come from a Theoretical Physics background and prior to the simracing "virus" entering my system, I worked as a computer programmer in Telecommunications, Airspace & Defence companies.
My old dusty bags are full of "new tricks" that would last you a lifetime.
As for the "old timers"... much of the racing simulation software you have in your computer is being or has been produced/programmed by "old timers". You really do not know what you're talking about.
-------------------------
As my mate (F2Chump) stated, I have done all I can to promote simulations and dispel myths and dubious claims. Hence my praise for Stefano's NetKar Pro, my admiration for David Kaemmer's body of work, and all that Gjon and his team has done with the ISI engine (and for simracingdom at large).
I am a firm believer that you don't need (ever) to increase complexity in order to achieve good results. In my experience, the more you "complicate" things, the more likely you are to induce unforeseen side-effects to the systems modelling you're working on. [Dr. Feynman spoke of this often, too bad his lessons seem forgotten...]
Given how tire companies work (rubber and tire research/construction being highly guarded secrets), more complexity (in simracing models) only makes matters worse due to the obvious requirement.
The ISI engine, particularly its version 2, may not be flawless, may be older than the current next-gens making simracing headlines, but it still is one of the best tools for modelling a car's behaviour (not pretty, but certainly one of the best).
And while many simracers, eager for the eye-candy, decry ISIMotor2's age -when age has no bearing on the qualities that make it a reliable, all-round solid physics engine-, I see not one or two, but many professional drivers making use of it even today. Which is ironic and puts simracingdom's views in the proper perspective.
Many seem to equate "higher complexity" with higher accuracy and higher precision, which is, to anyone informed on the matter, a fallacy. I have discussed that very same issue several times in the past at RD and NoGrip, even participated in articles published on the matter, not going to bother to revisit it again. People choose to believe "more/bigger is better", or that "more complexity" yields better results or provides higher physical fidelity (actually, it usually is the opposite), and I fully disagree.
Yes...but no need to "tweak to fit the data" (once you have a reliable engine).
That's one of the virtues of ISIMotor2's tire model (and other seemingly "simple" sim packages I know of). When you have the data (yes, I have dealt with incomplete, noisy or simply out-of-range data, but it's not always like that), the so-called "simple" models usually and easily allow for a 1:1 correlation, whereas the more complex models (especially the "physical/theoretical" ones) often fail to deliver the same results. Cruden's CTO, myself and other developers/engineers, discussed this issue a couple of months ago, our conclusions are pretty much similar - Pacejka/empiric/semi-empirical work quite well and can get us a long way, even if it takes a LOT OF KNOWLEDGE to analyse/tweak/verify (the data packages).
Er...I "can't stand rF2"?! Why?
----
Ah, modders as "old dogs", how polite...
In the past 4 years or so, I have worked alongside with race car engineers, data analysts, tire engineers and drivers, in different platforms and with different tools (sim modules, data acqs, etc).
I come from a Theoretical Physics background and prior to the simracing "virus" entering my system, I worked as a computer programmer in Telecommunications, Airspace & Defence companies.
My old dusty bags are full of "new tricks" that would last you a lifetime.
As for the "old timers"... much of the racing simulation software you have in your computer is being or has been produced/programmed by "old timers". You really do not know what you're talking about.
-------------------------
As my mate (F2Chump) stated, I have done all I can to promote simulations and dispel myths and dubious claims. Hence my praise for Stefano's NetKar Pro, my admiration for David Kaemmer's body of work, and all that Gjon and his team has done with the ISI engine (and for simracingdom at large).
I am a firm believer that you don't need (ever) to increase complexity in order to achieve good results. In my experience, the more you "complicate" things, the more likely you are to induce unforeseen side-effects to the systems modelling you're working on. [Dr. Feynman spoke of this often, too bad his lessons seem forgotten...]
Given how tire companies work (rubber and tire research/construction being highly guarded secrets), more complexity (in simracing models) only makes matters worse due to the obvious requirement.
The ISI engine, particularly its version 2, may not be flawless, may be older than the current next-gens making simracing headlines, but it still is one of the best tools for modelling a car's behaviour (not pretty, but certainly one of the best).
And while many simracers, eager for the eye-candy, decry ISIMotor2's age -when age has no bearing on the qualities that make it a reliable, all-round solid physics engine-, I see not one or two, but many professional drivers making use of it even today. Which is ironic and puts simracingdom's views in the proper perspective.
Minibull said:
Funny you mention Chronus. I just had a PM conversation with him a few days ago on the RD site and, from what he said, I have to say I fully agree with you.
Right......Because other than tyres, RF1 simulates real-life absolutely 100% accurately. Infact, other than tyres, AC, PC, NKP, LFS, RBR, RF1, RF2, etc. are all pretty-much running identical vehicle dynamics and vehicle kinematics modeling systems....right...
That is just a swipe at rF2, pure and simple.
Go ahead try it yourself, knock the wheels off and let us know how far you get.
( like taking candy from a baby p ) yes DD that's fine, but you misquoted Spins post to make it like he said something he didn't! he said one line about physics nothing about the tire models that was all Spinelli
