GTR 3

[Wayne Reed]

got me to lol

 

[Tim Meuris]

+1

Idd Ross,

you have an eye for detail,
it can add much to the reality and immersionfactor

 

[Dave Stephenson]

its physics first for me. eye candy comes a very very distant second in all cases except where it affects physics ie, wet tracks, dirty tyres, marbles, body deformation...

 

[Yuri Braham]

Ok i am also a fan of Physics. Because the graphics aren't important when the gameplay isn't good. (my opinion, just look at some very old games like Tetris or Pacman. Graphics are terrible but they are still amuzing).

- More realistic engine mechanic errors. So after giving everything in qualify the engine could build up some weakspots.
- Restricted amound of avaible tyres. (not everytime you go into the garage and get back on the track with some fresh brand new tyres).
- Track will build op rubber thats also visible after a amound of laps in practice. (and ofcourse washed away when it raines). This also shows the rubber marbles.
- Dry spots (racingline and different parts of track. Like hill parts where water flows away easily).
- And ofcourse the many other points all ready made by all of you. Like rejoining when dropped etc.

 

[David Wright]

I think we all want realistic physics.

The only problem is we don't really know what realistic physics are

(Though of course this doesn't stop many in the community pronouncing on the realism)

 

[Knut Omdal Tveito]

-chassis twisting
-deforming suspension (especially bushes)
-laterally deforming tires (not just vertically)
-fatigue life of more components
-more options for pushrod and pullrod suspension (specifying the bellcrank and coilover positions) to accurately model variable wheel rate
-temperature dependent damping and simulation of heat transfer for the dampers
-ability to specify damper curves
-turbo simulation
-good documentation of the physics file and units for all specified parameters

-and perhaps option for a J-damper for the F1 people

 

[Arnold Carter Wong]

I am waiting for the screenshots too:tongue:

 

[Pieter Theron]

This thread is like a damn magnet for me. You see it from time to time with a new post, you know there is nothing there but you check it out in anycase just to make sure you didn't miss anything

Shame on you Bram!!! :lol:

 

[János Ócsai]

Agreed!:tongue:

 

[Tim Meuris]

héhé +1

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

Shame on you Bram!!! :lol:

Why on me? SimBin announces a new game hype, and we follow with logical thread suggestions I think Sweden should send some pictures to fill this thread with :thumb:

 

[Dave Stephenson]

:kewl:needed!

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

 

[Dave Stephenson]

View attachment 24123
:kewl:needed!

you know you want the smiley though

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

Added to the smiley pack

:useless:

 

[FerrariMan96]

I think we all want realistic physics.

The only problem is we don't really know what realistic physics are

(Though of course this doesn't stop many in the community pronouncing on the realism)

I think we count physics as realistic when the best sim-drivers (or even the real ones) are on the laptimes of pros (or at least close)

That is also using similar lines, 'shifting points', braking points etc.

For example: Times on a sim like rFactor are much more realistic around Mt Panorama than on Codies' V8 Supercars (Race Driver) 1, 2 & 3.

My best laps around Bathurst in rFactor are around 2:09 (I'm not a pro) whereas in the Codies games it's around 1:54 - 11 seconds quicker than the real qualifying-lap record!

 

[David Wright]

I think we count physics as realistic when the best sim-drivers (or even the real ones) are on the laptimes of pros (or at least close)

That is also using similar lines, 'shifting points', braking points etc.

For example: Times on a sim like rFactor are much more realistic around Mt Panorama than on Codies' V8 Supercars (Race Driver) 1, 2 & 3.

My best laps around Bathurst in rFactor are around 2:09 (I'm not a pro) whereas in the Codies games it's around 1:54 - 11 seconds quicker than the real qualifying-lap record!

I agree this is a very good starting point. However we already have this with the RACE 07 series, so hopefully Simbin won't go backwards here.

What I was referring to (though I didn't make this clear) was the more subtle aspects of tyre physics, mainly centring around how forgiving tyres should be.

Take three sims - GTR, GTR2 and NFS Shift. Drive a Porsche 911 RSR around Donington and you will get pretty much the same laptime. What is different is how forgiving the tyres are. When GTR2 came out, its more forgiving tyres than GTR were decried as "arcade". I think the majority view now is that they are actually more realistic. Now Shift is out the tyres are even more forgiving than in GTR2, and as a result the usual "arcade" accusations have been made. The trouble is most of us don't know how forgiving racing slicks should be.

 

[David Wright]

-chassis twisting
-deforming suspension (especially bushes)
-laterally deforming tires (not just vertically)
-fatigue life of more components
-more options for pushrod and pullrod suspension (specifying the bellcrank and coilover positions) to accurately model variable wheel rate
-temperature dependent damping and simulation of heat transfer for the dampers
-ability to specify damper curves
-turbo simulation
-good documentation of the physics file and units for all specified parameters

-and perhaps option for a J-damper for the F1 people

Nice list, though for a modder (and perhaps professional sim developer) it is hard enough finding data on basics like weight distribution, CofG height and drag let alone data on chassis stiffness, damper heating and suspension bush flex.

For me the highest priorities would be turbo modelling (which you've listed too) and corner weights in setup. A WTCC driver commented this was the main weakness with the current RACE 07 setup options and, while Simbin replied they thought it wasn't worth the effort to add to the ISI engine, perhaps they might add it to a new engine. It would also be good to be able to model strut suspension without having to fudge it.

 

[Knut Omdal Tveito]

Nice list, though for a modder (and perhaps professional sim developer) it is hard enough finding data on basics like weight distribution, CofG height and drag let alone data on chassis stiffness, damper heating and suspension bush flex.

For me the highest priorities would be turbo modelling (which you've listed too) and corner weights in setup. A WTCC driver commented this was the main weakness with the current RACE 07 setup options and, while Simbin replied they thought it wasn't worth the effort to add to the ISI engine, perhaps they might add it to a new engine. It would also be good to be able to model strut suspension without having to fudge it.

Yeah thats true. I'm able to calculate these things using numerical methods and parametric modeling, but obtaining values from a racing team must be really hard.

Adjusting corner weights shouldn't be too hard to implement as its already in th physics file, just need to add it to the setup screen I guess:/

Good call on the MacPherson strut:good: Should be high on the list

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

A WTCC driver commented this was the main weakness with the current RACE 07 setup options and, while Simbin replied they thought it wasn't worth the effort to add to the ISI engine

Why wasn't it worth to add it to RACE 07 I wonder?