Assetto Corsa easy driving

[ganso2014]

Since 1.0 RC my feelings are that is too easy to drive, even with the TC set to cero.

Anybody think the same?

 

[Ghoults]

Did you see others spin? Did you spin around "expectedly", and if yes, why did you spin if you expected it? I thought you said karts aren't hard to recover.

In one instance I tried to brake too hard and almost spun because I locked the rear tires during braking. No I'm not fast in a kart. It was fun, preditable and driftable after sitting 5 minutes in the kart. Just like it was taking my econobox on a trackday.

You say you did not imply that, and then you go straight to implying it again. But ok, maybe for some people this is true.

I don't think many people agree that gtr1 and gtr2 were inferior sims at the time they came out. I thought both of them had crap for physics (mainly the icy spins issue) but imho it is perfectly valid to assume some people thought these games were realistic even if they were harder than real life.

Own fault, why didn't they drive the sims with acclaimed physics in the first place?
What about you, why didn't you buy an LFS account instead of EA games? Or if you did, what do you think of it?
(Edit: Guess i can answer that one myself, LFS wasn't released back in 2000-2001, D'oh!. But it's for 11 years on the market and still going strong, apart from the slow development.)

These are already long posts I'm writing and adding ALL the sims I've ever played will only make it longer. So yes. I've played rbr, gtl, f1 2002, n2k3, n2k2, rally trophy, viper racing, mobil1 rally championship, gran turismo 1,2,4,5,6, forza 3 and 4, ivan ironmans offroad, gp1, rf1, rf2, ac, nkpro, nknamie, racer, driver's republic, iracing, ac. And I also have lfs and I have done almost 115000km online in that game. Do you really want a breakdown of each of those? I can list even more games from my playstation times. Rage racer, need for speed1, nfs3, destruction derby 1 and 2, v-rally, rally cross, total drivin', colin mcrae rally etc. etc.

If you want to know whether I've played some game you can just ask.

I don't think you understood how this works:
If you say we don't see topmodels crashing Ferraris, and i post a vid of a topmodel crashing a Ferrari, it can be used as proof that your statement was incorrect.
If i say people are crashing their Ferraris, and you post a vid of a Ferrari not crashing, it proves absolutely nothing.
I never said it's difficult, never asked for reasons behind people spinning or driving tips but thanks i guess.

I never said topmodels have never spun a sportscar. I said that if those gtr1/gtr2 physics were realistic those supermodels would be spinning all the time.

But you are aware that this is a AC thread and we're talking about realism, no?.

As far as I'm concerned I can make general comment about some other racing games in a thread that is about ac being realistic or too easy. Ac doesn't exist in vacuum so comparison to other sims is inevitable and in fact justified in a thread like this. As such this thread is not all about ac but sim racing in general as well.

 

[Quas]

I don't think many people agree that gtr1 and gtr2 were inferior sims at the time they came out. I thought both of them had crap for physics (mainly the icy spins issue) but imho it is perfectly valid to assume some people thought these games were realistic even if they were harder than real life.

Fair enough. Perfectly valid to assume some people think physics harder than real life are realistic.

These are already long posts I'm writing and adding ALL the sims I've ever played will only make it longer. So yes. I've played rbr, gtl, f1 2002, n2k3, n2k2, rally trophy, viper racing, mobil1 rally championship, gran turismo 1,2,4,5,6, forza 3 and 4, ivan ironmans offroad, gp1, rf1, rf2, ac, nkpro, nknamie, racer, driver's republic, iracing, ac. And I also have lfs and I have done almost 115000km online in that game. Do you really want a breakdown of each of those? I can list even more games from my playstation times. Rage racer, need for speed1, nfs3, destruction derby 1 and 2, v-rally, rally cross, total drivin', colin mcrae rally etc. etc.

If you want to know whether I've played some game you can just ask.

Well i just asked. Not about every racing game you ever played, but if you're familiar with LFS, out of genuine interest if you consider it a sim with that icy issue. My point being, there's properly good sims around for quite some time. LFS for me is neither too easy, nor does it have low speed spin issues.
By the way, you've done way more km in LFS than me, i'm just above 22.000km online.

I never said topmodels have never spun a sportscar. I said that if those gtr1/gtr2 physics were realistic those supermodels would be spinning all the time.

To be honest, i don't remember the physics of GTR 1&2 good enough to be talking a lot about them. I do remember finding them at least somewhat realistic though.
I've seen a lot of those supercar fail videos and not everyone spinning is being filmed.
Did you see at what speed that guy in the Gallardo lost it, despite AWD? Very icy issue like.
Point being, spinning at low speeds is not necessarily unrealistic either.

As far as I'm concerned I can make general comment about some other racing games in a thread that is about ac being realistic or too easy. Ac doesn't exist in vacuum so comparison to other sims is inevitable and in fact justified in a thread like this. As such this thread is not all about ac but sim racing in general as well.

Of course you can. But you should also understand that if you argument that easier sims are more realistic in an AC thread, where the OP asks if Assetto Corsa is too easy, people might think you are referring to AC in your anekdotes .

 

[Stereo]

Did you see at what speed that guy in the Gallardo lost it, despite AWD? Very icy issue like.
Point being, spinning at low speeds is not necessarily unrealistic either.

Really not that hard to do in AC either. If you set the Huayra's traction control to mode 4 (least tc) or off you can easily do the same by hitting the gas pedal too hard. You can just as easily not, or leave TC fully on, but not everyone knows how much power their car has.

 

[Ghoults]

Fair enough. Perfectly valid to assume some people think physics harder than real life are realistic.

If you remember racesimcentral and the discussions on the rf/gtr areas you will also remember there being people who thought drifting cars need special drift tires and need to be setup for drifting to be able to drift. Of course in reality all you need to drift is a car. But there are people who think difficult is realistic. It was kinda hot topic back then. Some people were convinced gtr1/early rf got it right while others did not really believe it. In the end all that was sad because the physics engine itself was great (proven by modern rf mods and game stockcar) but the data that went in was just wrong. Gtr1/2 could have been really really great.

Well i just asked. Not about every racing game you ever played, but if you're familiar with LFS, out of genuine interest if you consider it a sim with that icy issue.

Icy spin problem is if you can't save the car once it slides more than some 10-15 degrees of slip angle. Laterally or longnitudally. A game has a slip angle problem if the best way to save a car is to not countersteer but to steer more so that the front lose grip. Basically by doing that you cause the fronts to lose even more grip than the rears. Becasue of the faulty data there is so much drop off in grip at high slip angles that the turned fronts have so little grip compared to the rears that the car basically self corrects itself into massive understeer.

Some people call this low speed physics issue but they are wrong. It may appear that such car has low speed problem only because at higher speeds the car has downforce which makes it impossible for the driven rear tires to overcome that grip. But at low speeds the car has more torque and less downforce so it gets sideways more easily and if it it has icy spin issue then those sideways moments turn into spins. The problem is the tires and the problem is the same no matter what speed. But because of downforce it is super easy to create the problem at low speed while at high speeds it is a lot harder to get the car controllably sideways in order to notice that it doesn't take much to create unsavable slide.

If you want to know more just download the rf demo and try the demo cars. Iirc all those cars have crappy unrealistic tires. Once you get sideways you will spin. Then try similar car in rf2 or ac. Suddenly you can save a slide. That roadster thingy in rf2 is great as are all lfs cars.

To be honest, i don't remember the physics of GTR 1&2 good enough to be talking a lot about them. I do remember finding them at least somewhat realistic though.
I've seen a lot of those supercar fail videos and not everyone spinning is being filmed.
Did you see at what speed that guy in the Gallardo lost it, despite AWD? Very icy issue like.
Point being, spinning at low speeds is not necessarily unrealistic either.

There are lots of people who look back at those games being revolutionary sims. I would not underestimate their presence today. From 1998 to 2006 basically every driving game on the market had that icy spin issue. Major differences were lfs and nknamie. Gpl and papyrus games still suffered some much from it. It is not anecdotal evidence. There was a long period in sim racing when the de factor realistic physics was icy spins. And even lfs had some longinitudal grip issues before 2006.

Just because you can spin at low speeds doesn't mean driving at slow speeds is difficult. You can fall when you are walking but walking is not difficult.

 

[Quas]

If you remember racesimcentral and the discussions on the rf/gtr areas you will also remember there being people who thought drifting cars need special drift tires and need to be setup for drifting to be able to drift. Of course in reality all you need to drift is a car. But there are people who think difficult is realistic. It was kinda hot topic back then. Some people were convinced gtr1/early rf got it right while others did not really believe it. In the end all that was sad because the physics engine itself was great (proven by modern rf mods and game stockcar) but the data that went in was just wrong. Gtr1/2 could have been really really great.

Nope, only been visiting RSC occasionally. I have bought my first wheel in 2004 when Gran Turismo 4 came out and spent 99% of my "simracing" early days on the Nordschleife there.
But i'm familiar with the discussion, similiar stuff was going on on GTPlanet.

Icy spin problem is if you can't save the car once it slides more than some 10-15 degrees of slip angle. Laterally or longnitudally. A game has a slip angle problem if the best way to save a car is to not countersteer but to steer more so that the front lose grip. Basically by doing that you cause the fronts to lose even more grip than the rears. Becasue of the faulty data there is so much drop off in grip at high slip angles that the turned fronts have so little grip compared to the rears that the car basically self corrects itself into massive understeer.

Some people call this low speed physics issue but they are wrong. It may appear that such car has low speed problem only because at higher speeds the car has downforce which makes it impossible for the driven rear tires to overcome that grip. But at low speeds the car has more torque and less downforce so it gets sideways more easily and if it it has icy spin issue then those sideways moments turn into spins. The problem is the tires and the problem is the same no matter what speed. But because of downforce it is super easy to create the problem at low speed while at high speeds it is a lot harder to get the car controllably sideways in order to notice that it doesn't take much to create unsavable slide.

If you want to know more just download the rf demo and try the demo cars. Iirc all those cars have crappy unrealistic tires. Once you get sideways you will spin. Then try similar car in rf2 or ac. Suddenly you can save a slide. That roadster thingy in rf2 is great as are all lfs cars.

Agree with your explanation of the issue, although i'd indeed call it "low speed physics issue" or "slip angle issue" and draw a bigger circle, taking factors like a green track + cold tires (rF2) and whatever reason else there might be into the equation. Some sims/mods are perfectly fine at low speeds but it's still unrealistically hard to save a spin, so imo those two problems or not necessarily connected.
Disagree with your assessment of rF2, not about the ugly roadster, that thing is properly great (very underrated imo). Yes, the stock ISI content is much better than it was with rF1 and once the track is rubbered in and you're up to speed rF2 it can feel bloody marvelous and anything but easy & boring.
But take any of the GT cars on a green track with cold tires and the issue is more evident then it ever was, i think this is severely overdone.
About that rFactor demo, you'd think i'm familar with rF1 content as one of the guys running the HGTTC club here and being addicted to the mod since the first day it came out 7 years ago. Don't want to start listing sims but i think i bought or at least tried them all (except pcars) since i'm 14 or something, including garbage like the NFS Shift series.
You can save spins in some of the rF1 default cars, but yes they do have crappy tires. IMO there's a lot more crap going on in them than just the tires.
That's why i think we'll only start to see rF2's true potential once people like Niels start to work with it.

There are lots of people who look back at those games being revolutionary sims. I would not underestimate their presence today. From 1998 to 2006 basically every driving game on the market had that icy spin issue. Major differences were lfs and nknamie. Gpl and papyrus games still suffered some much from it. It is not anecdotal evidence. There was a long period in sim racing when the de factor realistic physics was icy spins. And even lfs had some longinitudal grip issues before 2006.

I'm not underestimating the GTR titles at all, i said i was never their biggest fan, but some of that comes down to GT cars being not that appealing to me. Nevertheless i think those were great sims for their time. Definitely exciting.
Didn't get to experience LFS' longitudinal grip issues as i joined in 2006 or 2007, but it's still not perfect, as great as it is. Many of the world records have been achieved with unrealistic setups that wouldn't work that good irl. Take a FWD car, slam a locked diff on the front and some silly camber on the back and you'll be constantly pulling the oversteering backend straight, powering out of corners to good splits.
Still i think the XFG comes closer to a real life hot hatch than anything else i have ever driven in a sim.

Just because you can spin at low speeds doesn't mean driving at slow speeds is difficult. You can fall when you are walking but walking is not difficult.

Gallardo guy would disagree . But now you are putting words in my mouth, i don't think (and never claimed) driving at low speeds nor drifting is very difficult.
Again, i simply pointed out that crashing fools in supercars are more common than you might think (or make it look) + spins at low speed are not necessarily unrealistic.
Drifting is fun, although i do recall 1 or 2 spins over the years in cars that were below 400hp & spins at drift events are an everyday thing.
So, despite never having drifted a 1000hp Volvo (let's stay somewhat real here) i think it's safe to say you need some practice before you can make it look "super easy".

Really not that hard to do in AC either. If you set the Huayra's traction control to mode 4 (least tc) or off you can easily do the same by hitting the gas pedal too hard. You can just as easily not, or leave TC fully on, but not everyone knows how much power their car has.

So now AC has icy spin issues? Just kidding, that's very nice, it shouldn't be hard to do since the Huayra sends about 200 horses more to two wheels less. We'll see the rest of the story once AWD comes along.
Personally, i think AC would benefit from up to 10% less grip in general, but no matter if too much grip or not, some of the cars feel good, in some situations great.
Take the 1M for example, the way it sometimes understeers instead of oversteering when you accelerate out of a corner has that distinctive 1 series feel to it, i've driven countless 1's and this feels remarkably spot on.
But if i try to recreate the almost-dead-instead-of-vacation drift i mentioned earlier, it is pretty much impossible. Try it, take the 1M (street tires, stock set) on a track with some medium speed corners, approach a bend a tiny bit hot, brake and throw it in with a lifted throttle. The car will just continue to understeer unless you provoke it with silly moves. Even if you wiggle it a bit like you'd want to initiate a drift, it still doesn't show a fraction of the lift off oversteer the real car shows. This is too save, to "easy". It's like the weight transfer is missing and rear grip is way too much.
Totally unrealistic and it kills the car for me. A real 1 series follows the fronts like they're on rails when lifting, oversteering in a pleasantly controllable manner at the same time.

I fired AC up today and noticed they got rid of the 10 laps limit and now i can put my shifter in gear before the lights turn green, so i can scratch two of my gripes from the list.
But as soon as i saw cars taking righthanders with their wheel turned left with what looked like a drift car steering angle, i decided to give it some more time before i get back to it again.
To be honest, i don't even feel like talking much about it anymore. As you can see by this brief response .

 

[Ghoults]

You can save spins in some of the rF1 default cars, but yes they do have crappy tires. IMO there's a lot more crap going on in them than just the tires.
That's why i think we'll only start to see rF2's true potential once people like Niels start to work with it.

Rf2 has had some issues but it is miles and miles ahead of rf1 when it comes physics quality at launch. Or couple of years after launch. Personally I suffer from total lack of feel with rf2 but even then rf2 is imho already so good that it is not really possible to have a total revolution with rf2 that happened with rf1. Rf1 literally went from complete crap to totally amazing while rf2 is already pretty good if not great. Sure, niels brings a lot of knowledge into any sim he decides to use as platform but I don't really see if he could totally transform rf2. The end result would have to be something really amazing to just make a big change.

Agree with your explanation of the issue, although i'd indeed call it "low speed physics issue" or "slip angle issue" and draw a bigger circle, taking factors like a green track + cold tires (rF2) and whatever reason else there might be into the equation. Some sims/mods are perfectly fine at low speeds but it's still unrealistically hard to save a spin, so imo those two problems or not necessarily connected.

Calling it low speed physics issue is not just factually wrong but also misleading. The actual issue has nothing to do with speed.

 

[Quas]

Rf2 has had some issues but it is miles and miles ahead of rf1 when it comes physics quality at launch. Or couple of years after launch. Personally I suffer from total lack of feel with rf2 but even then rf2 is imho already so good that it is not really possible to have a total revolution with rf2 that happened with rf1. Rf1 literally went from complete crap to totally amazing while rf2 is already pretty good if not great. Sure, niels brings a lot of knowledge into any sim he decides to use as platform but I don't really see if he could totally transform rf2. The end result would have to be something really amazing to just make a big change.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what i wrote in my previous post. It's not about big changes, imo rF2 needs just a tad of Niels' magic to feel amazing. Just bring it a bit closer to GSCE physics and paired with rF2 realroad it should be a combination hard to beat in any sim.

Calling it low speed physics issue is not just factually wrong but also misleading. The actual issue has nothing to do with speed.

Oh, and calling it "icy spin issue" is factually correct, because it's winter and you always do a full spin when you lose grip .
But i think if we start splitting hairs we might bore the audience (if we didn't already), so i have no problem with adapting your slogan for a while.

 

[Ghoults]

It is not splitting hairs if you want to use term for something that is both misleading and just plain wrong. It's not my slogan either. It has been called icy spins by a lot of people...

 

[Quas]

It is not splitting hairs if you want to use term for something that is both misleading and just plain wrong. It's not my slogan either. It has been called icy spins by a lot of people...

Bit thick aren't we?
Once again, very slowly:
Your term is plain wrong because it has nothing to do with frozen water, you said yourself it's a tire issue in your explanation. But wait, the second word in your three word slogan is wrong too, because you do not spin everytime it occurs.
Calling it a "low speed physics issue" is not even half as bad, because it's only noticable at low speeds.
I think you deliberately ignore this and are reaching for straws now, i'm too old for that kind of back and forth kids discussion and would prefer to not go that way.
I think i'm done here.

 

[Chris]

Alright guys, time to cool off a bit.
Either keep the debate civilized or I'll stop you from having the debate here all together.

 

[Ghoults]

I have no idea what I've done wrong here. If I'm breaking a rule at least point it out to me so I can fix it and not do it again.

 

[Quas]

Alright guys, time to cool off a bit.
Either keep the debate civilized or I'll stop you from having the debate here all together.

But yeah, debating about how we name our favourite issue probably didn't add anything of value to the thread.

 

[Ghoults]

It is not a debate if you call me names and have childish tantrums. I'm done. You can have your last word.

 

[Quas]

It is not a debate if you call me names and have childish tantrums. I'm done. You can have your last word.

No hard feelings or tantrums, i apologise if you feel insulted.

-----------------



I'm sure most of us wanted Assetto Corsa to be the next holy grail of simracing, uniting the so called "hardcore" simmers with those looking for a forgiving driving model to one big happy family.
As a paying customer i have no interest in seeing them fail.
Kunos can keep my money and have a bit more once the laserscanned Nordschleife is out.
If you "invest" in something you want it to be good, however i try to not let the fact that i want to like it make me blind for the things i don't.
It's hard to make everybody happy, but judging by the amounts of praise AC get's from the masses, for some it already is that holy grail. To each their own.

 

[mclarenf1papa]

@Jarek Kostowski
LFS is 10x easier to drive than AC....

 

[gamer19]

@Jarek Kostowski
LFS is 10x easier to drive than AC....

I can not agree. Though... it differs from car to car.

 

[Tim Meuris]

i don't think ac is easy to drive
found race07 a lot easier

 

[mclarenf1papa]

I can not agree. Though... it differs from car to car.

IMO the road cars are FAR easier in LFS (not so much the heavily aero dependent race cars, but they feel really strange to me)

 

[mmkay]

Here are a few examples, that street cars might not be as easy to drive on the edge as you might think.

In my opinion just because we watch skilled drivers drive their racing machines on the limit and don't spin every corner, doesn't mean their cars are as easy to drive on the limit as some of you might think.

These cars are driven by everage Joe's, not F1 drivers. They seem to be a little more edgy, than if F1 driver drove them.
Watch whole movies.
Interesting part of the movie starts at 2:58 till the end.

 

[mmkay]

Another one.
Start from 3:45