AC or rF2?

[Justin Swan]

Rfactor2 or AC? Not necessarily on looks but which is going to be the better multiplayer? with the best RD club races etc etc? Keep thinking of buying rF2 but don't want to get it then AC becomes the "main" event.

 

[Eduard Mallorquí]

'the camber issue' lol... you know it's impossible to detect on stock content right? That's how small it is. if you can't tolerate bugs in a sim then I have some bad news for you re: rF2. They're literally changing tire parameters on every car right now, if that's not a compromise on physics instead of having everything perfect, I don't know what is.

The fact that AC devs fail at such elemental things makes you wonder how do they deal with more complex stuff. Also it's quite worrying that they don't even notice them while they are doing their own cars. Makes you wonder how they do them and if they even know their physics engine.

 

[Stereo]

Also it's quite worrying that they don't even notice them while they are doing their own cars.

It's been like that since AC came out in 2013 and nobody noticed until recently. The devs have a better shot at spotting mistakes than players but they can't work magic. If there are detectable side effects of the bug then they can look for it, but if they don't know something's wrong they have better things to do than contemplate the physical accuracy of every line of code.

They are adapting the old cars to the new engine technology, like AC did when the last tyre model was introduced. Comparing that to bugs ... lol.

If what you care about is simulation, then there's no difference between a bug that sets a parameter to 0 and the parameter being set to 0. They both make the physics wrong the same way. If you want to get into finer distinctions, you need to examine the scope and magnitude of the errors - say, a bug that makes it half what it should be vs. the parameter being set to three quarters what it should be. In that case one is better but they're still both wrong.

 

[Qazdar Karim]

Well, AC just added the telemetry app with the 1.3, how were we supposed to know about DX values before ? and AC has a very greedy telemetry outside the game... which brings me to the next point : rF2 allows you to see nearly all physics telemetry with motec, all sorts of values, and with no surprise, it seems to match real life data we have, it shows how confident are ISI guys with their engine.

We've been asking for lateral forces telemetry on AC for quite some time now with no success, but after the camber thing now, i am afraid of knowing more.

 

[Cote Dazur]

1500 hours into AC, enjoying every minute of it, but what do I know, I am just an average Joe, maybe I should start worrying, the elite seems to think their is an issue how camber is calculated.
In case you have not noticed, assuming all those elite are real life drivers, and not just thier mom's car, any Sim out there is a compromise.
Drive the one that gives you the best illusion, don't believe all the hype, their is no right or wrong just different shade of grey.

 

[Hash_V8]

Oh yeah now any issue brought up is by "elites" that drives "moms" car, cool,
and then this line

""Drive the one that gives you the best illusion, don't believe all the hype, their is no right or wrong just different shade of grey.""

Dont believe all the hype, indeed good advice, so if ppl jumping up and down pointing to AC as the ,mostest super realist,because of the hype,then ppl gonna challenge it, especially when so much rubbish being said about a title like rf2, since steam release that rubbish seems to be increasing, things like the CPM model being added to cars, unlike Iracing and AC this isn't a new tyre model version, but simply more detail added to already the most complex tyre model on the market, in this very thread its being made out as a "bug" and a negative, either ignorance,or a deliberate attempt at smearing rf2,rf2 is measurably better as both a simulation and racing game, simply with amount of simulated systems adn actual race day features.

AC is a good driver, that looks shiz hot,but thats it, a collection of cars and tracks with nothing at all in between, its a tech demo, and if a racing enthusiast asked for a title Id recommend RF2,RRE,Iracing and SCE before AC, but if my average steam gamer mates wanted a car game with some awesome cars with realistic driving and nice graphics I would point to AC.

200hours AC
260 hour RRE
600hours rf2
143 in SCE
250 in iracing
if we doing hours.

 

[Stereo]

things like the CPM model being added to cars, unlike Iracing and AC this isn't a new tyre model version, but simply more detail added to already the most complex tyre model on the market,

I hate to be the one to say 'major disinformation' but that's literally what the version changes on AC are, adding details to the existing model. Most recently they added multiple temperature layers, more flexibility in the load sensitivity curve. Sure, it replaces the old implicit surface temperatures - like how CPM replaces the old parameters for contact patch deformations. (which, if you've seen how much deformation you got even on stiff tires... yeah, probably a good move)


I'm not saying that adding CPM is a bug, just that it's extremely ridiculous to say that AC's devs are incompetent for only adding features at the rate they do, while praising rf2's devs for the exact same thing. Or to claim that one's more complex than the other - I'm sorry, but you don't know that. Neither game's open source. All you have is feelings.

 

[Hash_V8]

ISI tyre model is most complex out there fact, you can argue AC "feels" better, but im sorry AC isnt in same league as ISI on the physical tyre simulation,its literally rf2's calling card, for example all those things you just mentioned added to AC, have been in isi's model for a long long time, the biggest issue with AC against ISI model, is Kunos simply hasn't released the workings of it all much like their tele data, ISI lays it all out to see in its intricacies.

Again AC may feel batter to you , but rf2's tyre model, much like a lot of the harcore detailed simulation in rf2, is MEASURABLY better than ac.

I wouldn't expect any different, kunos is fairly new kid on block with a new engine, how can you even expect a small team like that catching up on teh many many years ISI has been working on their product, drawing no doubt on all their commercial success and experience too,there's a good reason for that commercial success,and ppl like gt academy use rf (without permission), kunos MAY one day get up to same detail, but not yet , tbh though I rather have kunos concentrate on getting race day features in and fixing the ruddy AI

 

[Cote Dazur]

@Hash_V8 they are the self proclaimed elite, their words, not mine. see post #31 & #33.

As opposed to you who state your preference for RF2 and explain why, but without feeling like you have to belittle anyone preferring AC or stating AC is useless.

A lot has been written from people who like RF2 better and have every right to do so , about how ISI calculate the physic better and more accurately. on the other side, more SIM driver prefer to drive AC over RF2 and the reason often mentioned is: because it FEELS better.
We can argue until we are blue if better calculation or better feelings are more important, and which SIM is better at what aspect, but their is no need to belittle a fellow SIM racer because he prefers SIM a over SIM b.
A self proclaimed Average Joe.

 

[Hash_V8]

Not trying to belittle anyone, that's ppl own insecurities, this is a sim site no? whys there always such negative vibes with discussing physics etc, through comparisons and playing all titles a lot, you learn stuff you'd never learn if religiously stuck to one title, as been said, devs do things differently to try achieve same outcome (realistic driving) it personally interests me to discuss it to further my knowledge of subject, unfortunately a lot of the ppl just wanna sling crap at each other like monkeys at the zoo though, and get insecure if someone suggest one title may simulate more than the other which really shouldn't matter a damn if you are not interested in that side of things and\or just enjoy the "feel" and drive of what eva game.

 

[David Dominguez]

I wouldn't expect any different, kunos is fairly new kid on block with a new engine, how can you even expect a small team like that catching up on teh many many years ISI has been working on their product

I agree with what you said except this, they aren't fairly new, they have been making sims for over 10 years already.

 

[Stereo]

ISI tyre model is most complex out there fact, ISI lays it all out to see in its intricacies.

That's true up to a point, you can observe the number of parameters and say it's higher. Doesn't mean it's more realistic, but it is definitely more intricate. If you're looking for the most real, the best option is to capture the physical laws and implement them - the next best option is to parameterize the performance envelope so that on every point you've measured, you have a parameter to let it match. The danger in that is twofold of course - first of all, it's very possible to fit to bad data - with such a complicated model, there are no telltale "that value's simply not possible" because you can't know enough about what the parameters mean. If a data point suggests the tire was at -10 psi during braking, you'd say "no, the sensor must have been experiencing difficulty", if it says that a32 is 1.375 when fitting that same point, you need a great deal of experience with good data to say that's not an acceptable value of a32. Second of all, behaviour outside the measured envelope is much less likely to be sensible - one big place this comes up, no tire dyno can observe large slip angles - past about 10-15 degrees, if you have a realistic load, the tire simply cooks without ever reaching a steady state you can measure. If you run a dynamic profile (eg. sweep the tire 0 to 30 degrees) then relaxation length comes into play meaning the data's not pure, and so on. A more complicated model is much more likely to spew out complete garbage when faced with situations that are not part of the measurements - there's just more to go wrong, working at extreme values amplifies faults in the data/model. This is not a problem on a professional simulator, because they don't intend it as a general purpose tool - if they can't simulate a car on two wheels, they just don't run scenarios with the car on two wheels, if they don't have collisions modeled, they just don't run scenarios where the car hits things, etc.

Concretely, if one sim lets you set the torque curve with 10 points, and then has a single parameter for air pressure, and another sim lets you set the torque curve with 20 points, but assumes static air pressure, you're not going to get better results from the second one just because it's twice as intricate and fits the torque curve within 1% instead of within 2%. It's not about how many things you get right, it's about which things you get right.

 

[Qazdar Karim]

@Hash_V8 they are the self proclaimed elite, their words, not mine. see post #31 & #33.

I see that you are stuck at the "elite" thingy, even though no one has claimed to be an elitist.
But the truth, is that in racing world ... there is an elite, people who win, who come 1st! they are either talented or have worked really hard to achieve that. Actually, racing is for the elite, not everyone can drive cars fast for a long period of time, but there are also ordinary people in racing world too, people who just like to drive, who do not succeed in a category and move to an easier one or different, and who have never won races or championships even with the same car as champions.
In simracing world too, not everyone is Greger huttu, Bono huis or Enzo Bonito (there are many), there are simply people who are better than the others, and there is a huge majority of average joes, the problem with the average joe is that he doesn't improve or doesn't want to improve, he likes to jump in a car and beat world records with default setup, and if he doesn't, he connects to the forums and starts complaining about "bad" feeling, that's where the devs who can't sell more copies start cheating on cars to make them feel "better", and therefore attract more clueless guys, who will become average joes later.

But, there are environments in which average joes can't survive (if they are planing to stay AJs), like in rFactor ... where there are devs who have chosen the path of "truth" which is using the most complete models to replicate real data, you can complain all the day to them, they won't care because they know what they are doing, they are relying on mathematical formulas, analystic, finite elements models (god knows what else, i am just a bit above the 1998 average joe), they have variables in their engine that have real life meaning, not some kind of enhanced understeer effect or random gamma curve.

The average joe has two solutions, keep complaining or practice hard and hope to be among the best. The 3rd option is to stop embarrassing himself on forums as well.

I hope this was elitist enough

 

[Cote Dazur]

@Qazdar Karim, the clueless guys who enjoy AC thank you for this edifying post. I wish you a long and prosper enjoyment of your favorite SIM and succes in your search for the truth.

 

[kikie]

I haven't been here on this forum for a long time. Today, I came across this thread and was curieus about rFactor 2, so I downloaded the demo and gave the Corvette a try. Although I like AC very, very much, I'm not a fanboy. AC has it's faults but the driving in AC feels very good.
After playing rF2 for a while, I have to say that this sim feels very good as well. Too bad for the very old and almost dark ages graphics. I enjoyed the driving in rF2 as well. If only the graphics were on par with AC's or even pCar's graphics. I can see the attraction of rF2. It is definitely a sim to keep an eye on. The weight distribution of the AC road cars is soooo good and realistic (very good suspension model in AC). I can't judge this feature in rF2 because there is no road car to be tested in the rF2 demo.
I find it very strange that the rF2 fanboys in this thread say that AC is much easier and give people the feeling that you are a good racer. Well, I was from the get go in rF2 almost two seconds faster than in AC. With standard car setup and no aids in both sims, rF2 is for personally the easier sim. Sorry! But that is my experience. Maybe the demo is not as good as the final game?

If the graphics were better, I think I'd buy rF2 as well (personal thing, I like next gen graphics ).
The AI in rF2 is so much better that the AS ( = artificial stupidity) of AC. The AI in rF2 is almost realistic. In AC, the AS is literally stupid.

But after the tire model update of AC, AC is on it's way to be a realistic sim. Before tire model version 5, there was definitely something wrong with AC's tire model but Kunos has improved AC a lot.

This information is not to brag, just to let you know that I know how cars should behave and how to control them. I have 10 years of real life experience in car control here and a few days of exprerience here.

 

[Lorenzo Bonder]

Guys, I'll only say this once:

Stay on the bloody topic. We've already had issues PRECISELY LIKE THIS ONE I'M LOOKING ON OTHER FORUMS ON RD, so the least we need now is one more to take care of.

We are here to discuss which one is best, rFactor 2 or Assetto Corsa.

Not who's an elitist and an average joe or give a lecture of what is what.

I got my opinions in both games but if I wanted to discuss about it I'd be doing what David Dominguez, Stereo and Hash_V8 are doing.

Got a problem with not being on topic and want to mock someone in the forum threads? Then don't try posting and intoxicating the thread.

Carry on.

 

[Jim Liak]

Fact :There is no perfect sim.
Fact : We users with no access to code, we can't define which sim is closer to reality.
Fact : Reality can only be simulated to a percentage.
Fact : rF2 and AC are different games.

Personally , i would suggest to anyone that likes to drive and not play , to just buy them both.

They are both excellent products .

If someone has to choose just one, then i would suggest to buy AC.
It's more modern and has a bigger community.

Although he can also buy rF2 (not on steam) , try it for a week and if he don't like it, he can always ask of a refund in 7 days of use.
"We advise you to install the demo version to check if your system can run rFactor 2 before you purchase, but after purchasing you may request a refund for rFactor 2, if eligible. Your eligibility depends on when you made your purchase and is good for 7 days. 7 days should be more than enough time to see if development is moving at a pace you are happy with, or if the product is outside your tastes."

 

[Chris Kennedy]

I haven't been here on this forum for a long time. Today, I came across this thread and was curieus about rFactor 2, so I downloaded the demo and gave the Corvette a try. Although I like AC very, very much, I'm not a fanboy. AC has it's faults but the driving in AC feels very good.
After playing rF2 for a while, I have to say that this sim feels very good as well. Too bad for the very old and almost dark ages graphics. I enjoyed the driving in rF2 as well. If only the graphics were on par with AC's or even pCar's graphics. I can see the attraction of rF2. It is definitely a sim to keep an eye on. The weight distribution of the AC road cars is soooo good and realistic (very good suspension model in AC). I can't judge this feature in rF2 because there is no road car to be tested in the rF2 demo.

The road cars seem very nice in rf2, (the corvettes and nsx) but the quality of the content as a whole seems too inconsistent atm, some tracks that im pretty sure were from isi in the workshop just felt very poor quality in terms of surface (similar to the bad rfactor 1 conversions for ac that have tri's stretching across the width of the track), and some of the cars felt really wacky, although possibly i didnt have real road set up right for some of the combos i tried (the inconsistency in some tracks supporting it was kind of annoying too), for now i got a refund and will wait till its next on sale and see if the content is more consistent in those respects.

 

[poet]

<Mod edit: Off topic post removed> Stop it !

 

[kikie]

Just tried rF2 again, the Formula Renault this time and must admit that besides the track graphics, it is feels very good. rF2 is a sim to keep an eye on. I'm not going to buy it just yet but who knows.
I'm enjoying AC too much for the moment.

If I had to choose right now, I'd probably go with AC. Partially because I don't know enough about rF2.

 

[Ben Lee]

The absurd pricing model is what stops me from buying into rF2.