Am I the only one who don't understand why people like AC?

[pinkimo]

Hi,

I'm a bit disturbed after having played a few hours to AC (on PC with a G27).

I love racing games of all kinds and it's very rare I don't like a good game. I've had a lot of fun on simcades like GRID and GT6, I've started realsims a few weeks ago with GSCE and AMS, and I have so much fun with them. I've also tested and liked R3E, GTR2, rF2 and RACE07.
I've spent my weekend configuring and testing AC, I've tested at least 20 cars (core content + a few mods, race cars and road cars) during more than 5 hours. I've tried hard to like it, but I think I like almost nothing in it.

Almost all cars I've tested seems to weigh 3 tons, everything seems so sluggish. I don't really feel the acceleration, they don't brake well (I've to brake earlier on AC with ABS than in AMS without ABS on the same car, and braking without ABS on cars which have ABS is a pain in the ass, even after having increased the brakes gamma), they don't turn well (not so much grip), and there is not much feedbacks from the road.

And perhaps the main problem, perhaps what makes me feels it's so sluggish, is the engine sounds. Most I've heard feel so artificial, completely liveless, and often closer to a mower than a car. I've not heard anything that bad in 10 years, feels like a (not so good) 90's game.
And as if it was not enough, they've added a huge muffled effect (even on the outside sound...), which mask the power of the engine, even for the rare cars with a not to bad engine sound.

I'm completely amazed when I see videos of "the best engine sounds in AC" with comments like "It sounds better than IRL"... Did they ever have heard any real powerfull car or any engine sound from any other good game?

I remember my first lap on the Nordschleife with a Z4 on GT6, it was so fun, very grippy, fast passed. I've done 2 laps on the Nordschleife with a GT3 on AC and it was not that fun at all (even if I've liked the details of the laser scanned road).
Last 2 days, after having passed 2 hours testing cars on AC, I did a few laps of some of the same cars on the same track on AMS, it was a few laps of fun after 2 boring hours...

I could think that the success comes from gamers which discover realsims with AC, but I see many people playing with other realsims who like also AC, which seems almost impossible to me.

Do I miss something? I just can't understand how what I feel in this game, which seems obvious for me, seems so different of what most people feel.
So I feel disturbed and a bit alone, so I post to see if I'm really alone

Regards.

 

[PicoBp]

Given that latency is always there and nothing happens in instant 0ms, I don't perceive latency with naked eye or hands on the steering wheel.
I'll give you my setup so to make a frame of reference. 60hz resolution at 5ms monitor latency with locked 64fps no vsync, G27 wheel with FF_SKIP_STEPS=0 (so that the game sends the higher frequency, whereas at =1 is half of it. I think it only affects FFB Hz sent to the wheel as the game always operates in the max physics frequency established no matter your setting for the FFB).
I don't know if the steering degrees has any effect on how you perceive the total latency of the car when driving it. But instead of the 900º (in game controls axis page) I use 870º ( with 435º virtual steering (video options - view tab) so that all cars match to my real wheel and 0% min.force with 100% gain in all cars; logitech profiler remains at 900. I play with car steering wheel enabled and I don't perceive any latency of inputs on naked eye nor staring at the screen.
Ps. My gpu is from AMD and amd uses prerendered frames 1, so I don't need to change in the game files the maximum_frame_latency from 0 (default of your gpu) or 1.

You said the key word - perception. To an average console user, 30fps is perceived to be fluid, even preferred to 60fp due to the cinematic effect. To most gamers 60fps is considered perfect. While there are some, for whom 144Hz makes a huge difference, despite the limited capabilities of the human eye and brain to actually absorb all that input.
In your example, you have a minimum of 22ms of latency. Your screen shows every picture for approximately 16ms, add the 5ms of your monitor and at least 1ms for your wheel input to be read by the USB port and forwarded to the game. This is the time by what your input gets followed on-screen. But then comes perception. My eye is sensitive to refresh rates until above 80Hz, so my perception of "instant" reaction starts around 83-84 fps. Physically it will never be "instant", but I don't really notice the delay, unless I specifically look for it. For you, 60Hz is already perceived as direct response, and good for you, less frustration.
There's also a difference with V-Sync/G-Sync/FreeSync, and even the internal design of the apps. Some (as I mentioned earlier) prioritize the graphics thread to trick your senses and make the perceived latency smaller or even non-existant. AC does a pretty good job with Sync off and an fps cap set, but there are many variables due to hardware, software and settings, even displays that affect that perception. And the actual latency is one thing, but the subjective feeling of response time is as widespread as the number of users.
All in all, there won't be a perfect answer or solution that covers all, just as in the argument of mathematically correct FoV versus what seems good for one, or what's more immersive to others.

 

[speedrcr]

I noticed a slight but odd difference in going from 60Hz to 120Hz. Since my TV supports 240 Hz ("dual 120Hz") I thought it might be worth a try. Granted I take a little bit of a performance hit, I think it's nicely matched to 100-110fps I get in game and so I can turn off V-Sync and avoid any kind of "Tearing". When FPS drops to about 40-50 (Multiplayer) it gets really difficult to keep focus in a race. There's a huge drive-ability factor when your FPS drops that much.

All in all, there won't be a perfect answer or solution that covers all, just as in the argument of mathematically correct FoV versus what seems good for one, or what's more immersive to others.

THIS!! Than god I'm not the only one that thinks this! Honestly I don't think there's anything that is the golden answer. I recently started messing with pitch angles (more positive, with a height difference) since my setup changed and I now sit lower (Obutto frame).

 

[Brandon Wright]

* Logs onto RD and sees this thread has grown by two and a half pages since I last checked.
* Grabs popcorn.
* Finds those two and half pages are mostly civilized and productive banter.
* Wonders what alternate universe I've woken up in.

Nice job chaps, keep up the good work.

(This forum has the best smileys)

 

[Turk]

There's also a 400ms delay between your eye and your hand going through the brain. In a lot of trained people I'd say they predict what's happening rather than just simply react to stimuli. The human brain has been called a prediction machine. It's possible that without the knowledge of time delays being entered into the equation when your brain is processing these things that the brain might just compensate for the delays. Especially considering what you register as sight is really just the brain's interpretation of what's going on outside based on a pretty terrible imagine coming from the eyes, it's basically your brains virtual interpretation of the outside world.

 

[Art-J]

I started noticing input delay in AC only after the heated debates it caused in some forum threads, like this one . It is there allright, but I admit I only drive sims and mods with historic cars, which have some serious tyre-flexing delay already, so a couple of dozens of miliseconds of visual (real wheel vs virtual wheel) more doesn't make a difference for me, as my driving style is adapted to much bigger delays anyway.

Tried turning V-sync off and capping the frames - indeed, that reduced the delay to about zero (in my perception that is), but I didn't like screen tearing, so reverted back. No big deal.

I understand, however, that might be an issue for guys specializing in modern, snappy racecars.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Tried turning V-sync off and capping the frames - indeed, that reduced the delay to about zero (in my perception that is), but I didn't like screen tearing, so reverted back. No big deal.

Did you cap the frames at the same rate as your monitor refresh rate? If so, that will cause tearing. If you put the cap at something like 121fps or leave it uncapped it should pretty much eliminate the tearing. If I cap mine at 60 I get massive tearing, if I leave it uncapped it goes away.

 

[Art-J]

I've got an ordinary 60fps screen, so I don't know if these high-fps-cap tricks developed by G-sync users will apply here. I'll surely test, though!

 

[Brandon Wright]

I've got an ordinary 60fps screen, so I don't know if these high-fps-cap tricks developed by G-sync users will apply here. I'll surely test, though!

Nothing about G-sync. It's well known that if you turn vsync off and set your FPS cap at the same rate as your monitor you will get tearing. To avoid tearing you need to set the cap higher than what your refresh rate is, there's even a formula for doing so (refresh rate x 2 + 1). I have ordinary 60fps monitors as well and this method works great for me, though results do seem to vary from system to system so it's not guaranteed to cure the tearing. But it's worth a shot.

 

[thepharcyde]

Nothing about G-sync. It's well known that if you turn vsync off and set your FPS cap at the same rate as your monitor you will get tearing. To avoid tearing you need to set the cap higher than what your refresh rate is, there's even a formula for doing so (refresh rate x 2 + 1). I have ordinary 60fps monitors as well and this method works great for me, though results do seem to vary from system to system so it's not guaranteed to cure the tearing. But it's worth a shot.

Vsync off no cap works too

 

[Deleted member 130869]

Yeah can run fine depends on what your parameters and resolution are compared to the next guy. I ran AC at first in 2014 @ 720P for a while on a 46" TV in order to keep my FPS up in multiplayer races.

I'd be curious as to what your FPS is now compared to when it first came out.

I can't say because 6 months after the first Early Access release, I got myself a 4gb 770 GTX.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Vsync off no cap works too

Yep, I mentioned that in my first post on the topic. Someone on the official forums recently did a fairly extensive test and FPS capped at 121 and uncapped were basically the same and had the lowest input lag.

 

[wwav10]

I am so glad u don't like AC because I hate all the racing titles u just mentioned.

It appears to me that you are interested only in the perception of speed or the action aspect of the racing game,. I also assume you have very little understanding and experience in racing technique and car physics. Of course you are one of the typical type that won't like\ AC.

 

[Raikku]

I would say that I don't understand why ppl doesn't like all sims? I've been thinking alway that you should always have all sims. It doesn't matter which sim you drive, just get them all. That way you have all of them and then you just drive what you want, every sim has its own strengths and it's only stupid to not get them all.

Sometimes I drive iRacing, then I switch to AC and then to RRE etc etc, in the end I can even switch to consoles and drive Forza with pad(!).

 

[Stereo]

I would say that I don't understand why ppl doesn't like all sims?

Mostly the ones I don't own are because of the content list, if there's not enough there that I want to play with why buy it. Like for one thing, I'm not a fan of all kinds of vehicle racing, so for example modern F1 just has no interest to me. If a game is only about F1, then I know I don't really want it.


Like it's completely fair to say I'm not really a fan of sim racing, I've tried it, I prefer a good driving simulator. So I'm not really judging the genre by the buzzwordy things (does it have pitstops, does it have red flags for people getting lapped) cause I don't actually care about the true to life racing experience.

 

[Art-J]

Pretty much the same here. I "specialize" in late '60s, early '70s stuff only, so even though I keep reading good reviews about R3E, Automobilista and rF2, I don't own them, 'cause they either do not have any of "my" content at all, or have only a little bit of it, not justifying the full price tag for me.

I'm being constantly tempted by Automibilista's Osterreichring and Kyalami, though, so maybe one day...

 

[fortyfivekev]

I'm being constantly tempted by Automibilista's Osterreichring and Kyalami, though, so maybe one day...

AMS isn't too bad on that period with the FVintage (1967 and 1969) and FRetro + old Opala Stock Cars if that is your thing, all of which are great fun. There are also classic versions of a couple of the Brazilian tracks in the game + 1972 Imola coming real soon as DLC.

I'm open minded about what sims to play and really it is just business models that put me off getting things. I did a couple of years of iRacing but in the end I didn't really enjoy it enough to justify the expense. R3E is about the only one I've never played, I just don't like the business model. If they have the Black Friday offer again this year though I might pick it up. Currently just playing AMS and AC but I will re-install rF2 when DX11 comes out.

 

[Motowntom]

To the OP.... yes.
Cheers

 

[bondyboy]

To the OP.... yes.
Cheers

+1 yes OP

unless they're a pCars shill, then I understand

 

[David Ignjatovic]

AC good simcade with t300, AMS peak simulation value, even better than rf2.
AMS FTW though.

 

[hodge like]

Very simple for me... bought a PC 2 years ago purely for AC & couldn't really get on with it. Tried other titles to which I was enjoying but decided to give AC another chance. Started to like more & more then recently ditched the pedals & shifter to be replaced with Club Sport versions. For myself, AC has everything I need in a sim plus with the upgraded hardwear, I'm super enjoying it!!