Paul Jeffrey

Premium
rFactor 2(rFactor2.exe) 09.17.2016 - 20.18.32.05.png

Following Fridays Sim Racing Expo announcement of the partnership between Image Space Incorporated and Studio 397, we have been lucky enough to sit down with Tim Wheatley of ISI/Studio 397 to discuss the new arrangement and what the future holds for rFactor 2 in 2016 and beyond.


In our two part interview, we will be looking at what the new partnership means in real terms to the ongoing development of the sim, how some of the already announced intentions are shaping up, talk about licencing arrangements for new content and a few little surprises as well...

Read on below for part one, and keep an eye out here on RaceDepartment for more rFactor news due to be announced over the course of this weekend.

RD: What does the announcement mean to you guys at ISI?

TW: Well for me personally, I now have two jobs. I work for Studio 397 and also for ISI as well. For the people working for the company, content guys just have a new employer. They just keep on going as usual and I bounce between the two and undertake a little bit of work for both.
ISI was starting to get to the point where rF2 was going to get pushed down and "not rF3" was going to start coming up. Many of us within the company felt that rF2 wasn't ready to be pushed down yet. It's still got things that I consider to be incomplete. I think everybody would obviously agree with that one, and there's a lot of features that other sims have that rF2 still needed, that just weren't ever now going to be brought into the product.

From a practical standpoint, the partnership basically allows rf2 to keep going, to stay with or ahead of the other sims as far as the development is concerned.

ISI is pretty much focused on "not rf3" going forward, but the cool thing is that the new studio has full rights to the source code and branding of rf2 and will be developing on that. Also Studio 397 effectively have the scope to hire ISI to do work on that as well so it's actually quite a cool arrangement.

RD: So when you say the content guys have moved over, are their number to be bolstered with new staff members at Studio 397?

TW: The goal on the content side is to speed that up in a big way, but also to take another look at modding and supporting modders. There are various things that have been discussed. Marcel has even proposed to accept the rf1 tyre model in rFactor 2 because, let’s face it, the tire model is the barrier for a lot of modders. He was also talking to various modders through his connection with the community, and he was basically talking about building a tool that you could put an rf1 mod into and it would spit out an rf2 mod. The first thing that I think with that, is it would effectively put rf1 out to pasture and more easily move everybody over to rf2, as there would be no need to stay with rf1 anymore. It lets all of those people in that consider the rf2 tyre model too complex or who can get similar things from the rf1 tyre model with enough tweaking. People like Niels and other physics gurus are quite content with the rf1 tyre model, and that can be the primary reason why some of these people haven't done any rf2 modding.

It is important to listen, and that's what Marcel has been doing.

RD: In effect then, it sounds like Studio 397 have a bit of a free reign to develop rf2 how they see fit going forwards? It's not really commissioned by ISI to develop it...it's in effect being handed over to 397?

TW: Yeah, it’s my understanding the new studio has complete control. If Marcel wanted to change the name he could do, but obviously he would lose a lot by doing that and that’s why it’s a little rebrand instead to try to give a freshness.

RD: So from a business point of view, does this mean ISI are losing business because of people that were creating content being paid by ISI moving over to Studio 397 or are 397 a subsidiary of ISI?

TW: Well ISI doesn’t have to pay as many staff anymore, so its income from rF2 evens out. Studio 397 is a subsidiary of Luminis, not ISI.

RD: Will ISI be making any profit from rf2 anymore?

TW: Yes, it will still be taking a cut, and obviously ISI is wholly responsible for rF1, Pro, etc.

RD: Was the move over planned or has it kind of progressed by itself?

TW: First time I heard about the possibility was a few months back. Marcel has been working with ISI since the rF1 steam release, and this transition seemed internally like a natural thing. As ISI itself was looking to focus on "not rf3", the rf2 focus became less. It's one of those situations I didn't personally like being in, and over the years we’ve had intentions to add various elements to the sim, that I confirmed to the community when told to, that at a later stage found themselves taken off the table again. I kind of feel like I appeared to be seen as lying to the community about certain features I was told were going to be implemented, and basically was told later that we are not going to be adding that to rf2. Now, via Studio 397, they’re back on the table and that takes a load off me as well as the rest of the team.

Marcel, I think was sensing that just at the time rF2 was getting it’s legs, we were going to be winding things down with it. There were talks and it became an actual possibility that he could take over development and basically continue almost what he'd been doing already, but instead of being a contractor to ISI he would be the actual developer and just be paying a revenue fee to ISI.

RD: So basically it's picking up from where ISI have left off ?

TW: Yeah exactly, but with more focus and without the distraction of “not rF3” in pretty much every single way. And there certainly will be many things Studio 397 bring to rF2 that ISI had decided not to (VR being one of those). What's nice with this arrangement that a lot of the other developers don’t get, is that Studio 397 can hire ISI for work when needed. ISI obviously know the engine a lot better than any other contractor would!

rFactor 2(rFactor2.exe) 09.17.2016 - 20.16.24.04.png


RD: So, why's it called Studio 397?

TW: Most laps driven at Le Mans in the 24 Hours: 397 Laps!

RD: In the announcement you speak about VR implementation. What are your impressions of VR in a sim racing environment? Is that the sort of thing you always wanted to see in rf2?

TW: I was actually very much a VR sceptic in the beginning until I ended up getting hold of a DK2. I tried all the demos and things like that and what I found really quickly was I got motion sickness from the first person perspective ‘walking’ type games. What I noticed straight away was though that in a cockpit based environment, where you have something in your field of view that isn't moving or moves with you, then it took away the motion sickness for me. I started to think of flight sims, space sims and racing sims, whether it's a the top and bottom of the helmet you might see, whether it's the cockpit itself, you can very effectively make it so you can reduce motion sickness through the visual input.

I tried the Live for Speed demo on the Oculus website at that point, tried a space sim too, then effectively the first time that I sat in the cockpit and looked around I was sold! I just thought to myself yes, this is absolutely amazing. Literally that 10 or 15 minutes on just a couple of titles sold me on the entire concept.

I was the guy in the company at ISI that was really pushing constantly for it! I've always been the kind of guy and Gjon has been the kind of boss that I can argue with him and he can take it! It's a very nice relationship from that kind of standpoint, and I love that.

The only issue that I had with VR, the only reservations was that you needed a really powerful PC, the rumours that they were only going to make it available for a later Direct X version (which they did), and the resolution. That's a reservation that I still have, and it's why this year I took to upgrading my personal PC to be VR ready and I'm really hoping that during 2017 we will see a higher resolution come in with some second generation VR headsets and basically I'll be good to go with my new PC. But yeah, my reservations really are minor and considering I went into it a complete skeptic thinking it was kind of a fad, that's pretty impressive of a technology to turn someone around like that.

RD: With the upgrade to DX11 and mentioned performance tweaks, will that make the transition to VR easier for you than trying to force VR into an already established DX11 title and does the skill set for this work already exist in the studio are will you be looking to recruit?

TW: Well I posted a picture today of VR running on a screen. That's actually Joe from ISI who's doing that work for Studio 397 right now. Currently we are looking to implement for Q1 2017 as at this early stage work has already started on the project.

RD: What kind of VR implementation are you looking for in rFactor 2?

TW: The current rf2 UI would not support being displayed in VR. So currently at the start of the race you would have the countdown and you would put the headset on (similar to AC right now), that's something that we'll have to sort out. Marcel has said that UI is going to be a focus though, so we may end up with a VR compatible UI in the future.

rFactor 2(rFactor2.exe) 09.17.2016 - 20.14.50.03.png


RD: Moving away from VR for a bit, has the partnership moved you away from the original roadmap you had for the sim? You mentioned earlier that the arrival of "not rf3" kind of moved rf2 down the order a bit. Was that always the plan or did "not rF3" force the issue a little bit?

TW: Marcel didn't come from a development background. He's an actual sim racer and the kind of things that he wants are the same things many others want and pushed for that the development side has often pushed back on. Marcel is now more open to those things because he also sees the perspective from a sim racers side. Actually in many ways it feels like a fresh start, like a more motivational situation right now.

I think developers do get burned out as well. "Not rf3" is another racing title, but it's something different from rf1 and 2 enough that it's appealing for the coders to go and do that. I think there was definitely a little bit of burn on rf2. Some people disagreed on where the focus should be, and what’s nice is that ISI and Studio 397 found a way to make everyone happy, including the community.

RD: So who is left at ISI from rF2 that will work on "not rf3", or are you looking for a new influx of staff for the new project?

TW: The full time coders in the office at Ann Arbor are no longer focused on rF2 but on some other stuff most of the time now. A couple are doing some Studio 397 work as I type though…

RD: It appears that Luminis work in the cloud computing industry. Would it be too wild to speculate that rF2 may find itself looking at an iRacing style online setup in future?

TW: It's certainly been looked at and Luminis actually have a few different software solutions that are very very powerful. One of the other ones that they have which have also been looked at are like a schooling situation where we could have a racing school as well. Things like that a definitely being look at.

RD: Is the racing school interactive or a video type setup?

TW: Kind of a mixture between those two sort of things. But at this point it’s just a discussion point, nothing more.

rFactor 2(rFactor2.exe) 09.17.2016 - 20.12.57.02.png


RD: Should the move have any effect on licencing arrangements? With Studio 397 be making use of the contacts formed during rf1 and rf2's lifetime?

TW: All existing licensing has transferred over. But it’s also important to look at this and talk about it, as one of the major issues with the product previously was that we often didn't have a budget for the big name licenses. That made what I did, bringing in the cars and tracks that we did difficult but interesting.

Places like Indianapolis Motor Speedway actually understood modding and were very very nice. Essentially they understood and came into the discussion aware that if they didn't licence it to us and ensure quality that way, there was a good chance that it was going to appear in our product anyway from someone else, maybe of lesser quality, and that allowed us to make sure that we were able to get a first party licence and do a first party track for a reasonable amount. I wish everyone respected the difference between huge studios backed by Sony or Microsoft and the tiny guys like us. We all have an audience and our audience loves racing.

I’m glad that the budget should be a little better, it was a very difficult situation so yes, the new arrangement actually opens things up a little bit and gives us a budget that we should be able to work with, and should open things up to actually licence a lot more things that people actually expect from a racing title of this calibre. I had to walk away from a lot of deals and contacts.

RD: Ok that's good. So is anything already in development that we might see released in the near future?

TW: There are various things that we are waiting on data for and all of that stuff from ISI that we've just kind of moved over. I’m also close to signing a couple of full series, but we feel it’s also important to get rid of the sporadic single car licenses.

If you think about just the launch trailer that was based on the Grand Prix movie, I went to every single team from 1966 except from the Shannon team which didn't even start the British Grand Prix, I think their engine blew on the start line or something, I contacted every single one and really it was only Ferrari that were completely out of our range and probably still are, but all the others gave fairly reasonable prices and I managed to track everybody down.

It was kinda crazy and awesome, I got to speak and communicate with some of my heroes, and I'm really proud of the job I did tracking some of these things down but then the other content just never really happened. We licenced, and still have the licence, for the Eagle T1G and what I got from Mr. Gurney on that one was 1966, 67, 68 and 69. For 66 you had the Climax engine, for 67 you had the Weslake engine and then 68 69 you had little things that were different like little down planes on the front and things like that. That's still licenced and I still have the pictures that I took and the reference material and everything, but previously it just kept getting pushed back and that meant that why would I licence anything else and actually get a deal with anything else from 66 when we can't even build the Eagle car that we have? So that's been a big issue with content, and often what has limited us.

Single make series it obviously makes a lot more sense, but there is more of a focus now and Marcel seems kind of intent to not have single cars from series that have more than one car. We really need to flesh out some of the bones we have of some of these series types.
Another thing I am fond of with licensing is to get the full series. The deal with USF2000 and the Road to Indy I really like, because it allows up and coming racing drivers to be in a racing simulation. The great thing for them or any kind of fan or family or anyone whos using our product, is they can race against them or as them.

We had a lot of people contact us when we did the F2 saying how cool it was that their brother or uncle or whatever was in a racing simulation. It matters to these guys and I like the fact that with rF2 we can support the series. All of those sponsors that are on a real USF2000 car aren't being shown in other products that only use player liveries. It doesn't give the sponsors as much, it doesn't give the teams as much which doesn't give the series as much. I like the fact that you are almost supporting the series when you bring in all the drivers, the liveries the helmets and everything like that.

RD: Obviously you are plugging in real world data into rf2. That should have some benefits as well for people in that series or those looking to move to that series?

TW: There is actually a guy that works with some USF2000 teams called Michael Peters who's posted in the forums a few times. He started to do a USF2000 mod and posted in our forums about it and then he contacted us to say have you guys thought about doing this series. We basically used him and used his knowledge which was pretty extensive to go forward with this. He's helped us a lot to provide us with a lot of contacts and through him we've had 7 or 8 2016 USF 2000 drivers that have all tested the 2016 car for us. The feedback and everything has just been really fantastic. They should be really, really good realistic cars with great data and testing done.

RD: So is there a rough ETA on when we might see these in game?

TW: The 2016 USF2000 cars are actually pretty much ready to go, we just have a little paperwork to tie up.

Part two of our exclusive chat with ISI will be published shortly. Watch this space...

Check out the rFactor 2 sub forum for more of the latest news, community discussion, top quality mods, car setups and of course our professionally run club and league events.


Did you like the first part of our exclusive interview? What information excites you the most from the article? Are you happy with the rF2 announcement? Let us know in the comments section below!
 
Last edited:
The Pajeka tiremodel is still widely used in the automotive industries. It's basically a bunch of mathematical formula's working together to produce very accurate results.
So it's good to have both tyremodels available. In the proffesional simulation they prever the Pajeka model as it's easier to tweak to get satisfying results.
A mathematical formula does not get old, there is nothing wrong with 10 year old code.
Have a look at you PC it's running x86 code originating from early 70's.
Many calculations and pieces of code don't matter it's age, if written properly it will do for another 50 years.

I see your point but I have a different view.
The driving experience is not even comparable and that is what simracing is about at the end.
Especially when talking about racing rF2's physicsal tiremodel is far far superior to pacejka.
The automotive industry might use what it uses for it's own reasons but my guess until now there was nothing better available which provides the needed accuracy.

rF2's model is young and as we can see people are having a hard time getting away from pacejka for their own reasons which I do not want to judge.
But as time passes I am sure new "gurus" will pop up and proove even the most hardcore pacejka fans wrong.
For me personally pacejka is a storry from the past and will not survive in the simracing genre.
 
First of all Pacejka has designed many tire models, what you are talking about is his Magic Formula tire model... which isn't even used in rFactor 1. Second, a physical tyre model isn't superior to any other unless you can come up with data that proves that its output matches closely a given tyre behaviour. It's just another approach, that on paper has some good things compared to a empirical/semi-empirical model (and those ones have some advantages over physical tire models as well). And third, thanks for the interview :)
 
The Pajeka tiremodel is still widely used in the automotive industries. It's basically a bunch of mathematical formula's working together to produce very accurate results.
So it's good to have both tyremodels available. In the proffesional simulation they prever the Pajeka model as it's easier to tweak to get satisfying results.
A mathematical formula does not get old, there is nothing wrong with 10 year old code.
Have a look at you PC it's running x86 code originating from early 70's.
Many calculations and pieces of code don't matter it's age, if written properly it will do for another 50 years.

like @P*Funk once replied to me: "You can't use data to trump another person's feels. The feels rule all. People will invariably equate their subjective and arbitrary feeling with what better represents the otherwise objective assertion of realism.

Its impossible to defeat it." personal feel subjugates even advanced mathematical analysis in simracing
 
Last edited:
If I may clarify my thoughts here a bit, as I feel there might be some misunderstanding:
  1. The tyre model in rF2 is a great and really advanced model and our physics guys (Michael and Marek) obviously get great results with it. We will not drop it at all. In fact all current and future car physics we make will continue to use this model. You probably have seen the recent blog series about the BT44B that explains a lot about this model.
  2. We are considering allowing the rF1 tyre model as an option for specific cars because we are aware that certain highly respected physics gurus get great results out of that model based on the models and data they have for real world cars.
  3. In fact, in the future, if other tyre models emerge, we could consider integrating those as an option as well. The main thing to remember is that we're trying to be an open platform to the community. Yes, we are committed to providing the most realistic simulation. That will never change.
Thanks, you didn't even have to explain this as it was pretty obvious. People just like to jump to conclusions too fast. If anyone ever tried to port a car to or from rF2 would understand
 
It may not even be necessary to accommodate the old model if we get developments on the current model which make it easier to work with. Things like making QSA testing less time intensive and less manual. Hell, for me personally, even something as simple as giving TTool a queue of TGMs to process (instead of having to manually start each one) would make it a much less unpleasant task, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.
 
I'm not sure if putting all the work into getting rf1 tire model into rf2 is a good investment. It is not a bad option to have but what is the cost here?

Why not instead focus on building a library of rf2 tires that modders can use instead? Look at the current offerings and update them all to the newest spec instead (cpm and whatever) and then add few more tires to fill the gaps. Also try to improve the current tire model so that people can take one tire that is almost what they want and then easily change it little towards what it should be. In the end rf1 tire model is a step backwards and will inspire nobody to give rf2 another shot. Nobody is excited about there being more rf1 converted content for rf2.

As for focusing rf1 content, converters and more tools. No. Forget rf1. Just forget it. Focus on new modders instead. Look at the appalling documentation and improve it so that people new to rf2 and new to modding can make mods for rf2. Improve the gjed, provide tutorials and guides that allow people who want to start making mods for rf2 to actually do it. You want to show what rf2 can do at its best. Not what was mediocre 10 years ago (the best mods are already in rf2) to be mediocre in rf2.

Make it easier for people to build new quality content. Not make conversions easier. Rf2 already failed because it focused so heavily to creating a platform for experienced rf1 modders who use 2012 version of 3dsmax. It did not bring in the modders and it did not bring in the mods. Focus on the new people. People who want to learn but have to deal with vertical learning curve because of appalling basic documentation of 3d and car creation. If you want conversions make it easier for modders to convert their own cars and tracks from ac into rf2. All you need to offer is documentation. I'm not even talking about physics. Just the basics which are not explained.
 
Focus on new modders
+1, :thumbsup:
Creating a scratch build car or track isn't possible if you don't have an old 3ds max version. Those old 3ds max versions aren't available any more. 3ds max 2012 Student licenses are expired. Cracked versions are unstable... and illegal. :whistling:

gJED is a great tool, i've spend some time with it. But it's not compleet. Doing a track or car with a 3d moddeling program and gJED isn't possible at the moment: No starting lights, no headlights, no reflections, tree billboarding needs a fix...

Hopefully Studio 397 will finish gJED.

I really don't think the rF2 model is the bottle neck for modders.
 
The real cost in doing that is that it is clearly a step backwards. Going back to 10 years older tech won't make people suddenly want to make mods for rf2.

Some knowledgeable physics people are fine though with 10 years old tech, as mentioned in the interview:

People like Niels and other physics gurus are quite content with the rf1 tyre model, and that can be the primary reason why some of these people haven't done any rf2 modding.

Also as @David Dominguez pointed out, you can already drive the rF1 tire model in rF2 and all AI cars use it as well, so there is actually no work required to get it running for the player.

The other problem I have with rF2 tire model is that some features are still unfinished or poorly understood by modders, tire pressures for example work badly or don't work at all, depending on the car. Even ISI doesn't seem to fully understand it yet, since on many official CPM cars you achieve the optimal setup by using minimum tire pressures.
 
Last edited:
No, but the advances in rF2 outside tires might. Racing sims aren't just physics sims, ya know?
I'm not sure what you mean. The tires are not the roadblock why people are not making mods for rf2. If you are saying that I'm suggesting that the focus of rf2 should be nothing more than physics then you have misunderstood. Imho rf2 needs to work on its non-physics stuff more than anything else.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean. The tires are not the roadblock why people are not making mods for rf2. If you are saying that I'm suggesting that the focus of rf2 should be nothing more than physics then you have misunderstood. Imho rf2 needs to work on its non-physics stuff more than anything else.

You have misunderstood.

The tires are a roadblock, and I will say I honestly think for many of the mods out there a rF1 model probably would end up working better than a half assed rF2 model implementation.

So why bring what could be a rF1 mod to rF2? Because everything else that rF2 has, which is a better racing experience. Real road, weather (this is where IMO they need to spend the most of their work outside content), AI...

People in here are acting like the gates would be open to a bunch of conversions - look around, they've been here for years. It can't hurt.
 
All that needs to happen for the rF1 tire option to be worthwhile is for CART Factor to finally get to rF2. With that said the oval racing AI is something I hope is at least on the list of things to be looked at.
 
+1, :thumbsup:
Creating a scratch build car or track isn't possible if you don't have an old 3ds max version. Those old 3ds max versions aren't available any more. 3ds max 2012 Student licenses are expired. Cracked versions are unstable... and illegal. :whistling:

gJED is a great tool, i've spend some time with it. But it's not compleet. Doing a track or car with a 3d moddeling program and gJED isn't possible at the moment: No starting lights, no headlights, no reflections, tree billboarding needs a fix...

Hopefully Studio 397 will finish gJED.

I really don't think the rF2 model is the bottle neck for modders.

3D simEd can do a lot of things gJED can't. Combine them and you can finish up almost any mod.
 
I must say I'm not sure about the option to allow the use of rF1 tire model; personally I don't really mind, I think it's a great model despite its age as we can see in AMS, however somehow it gives the impression that they underrate one of their selling points. But it's true that rF2 TM is difficult to work with, it looks more oriented for a tire manufacturer engineer than for a modder. Perhaps a tyre creator where the user can select few properties, sizes etc and it automatically generates a reasonable set of tyres would be a good solution.

But on the other hand, I really think the lack of proper visuals is what has affected the most the number of quality mods that we have seen in rF2. Let's hope the new DX11 graphics engine will be on par with the visuals of other popular sims, then I think it will automatically bring more interest.
 
You have misunderstood.

The tires are a roadblock, and I will say I honestly think for many of the mods out there a rF1 model probably would end up working better than a half assed rF2 model implementation.

As a modder my experience is that the biggest hurdle is the overall almost complete lack of documentation. Tires are tricky and surely part of the problem but if you start from 0 and try to get your model and car into rf2 it simply won't happen and the roadblocks appear much sooner than with tires. Sure the rf2 tire system could be miles better but I think you are mistaken if you think rf1 tires is even partial solution to a problem that is just overall lack of documentation. Period. Lack of documentation about every single thing.

People who are already knowledgeable about rf2 are already making mods for rf2. These are the people who would be making the conversions. It would not even increase the amount of mods coming to rf2. What rf2 needs is new blood and new blood needs documentation.

I don't really care about rf1 tires. But putting a big focus on converted rf1 content is a huge mistake. It doesn't take rf2 forward. It hasn't and it doesn't. The biggest issue is that with rf1 tires there is a big chance everybody will just move to using rf1 tires if the documentation and process of making rf2 doesn't improve. That will make rf2 look bad. It is essentially just rf1 with rain and pretty graphics

Imho focusing on better documentation and tools would help everybody. New people who just watched their first 3d modelling tutorial on youtube or aspiring physics engineer who just read his first article about cambers and casters. It would also help those who want to convert. They all benefit when it doesn't take months to figure out the most basic mundane things on their own. Because that's the real roadblock. Not tires.
 
Last edited:

Latest News

What would make you race in our Club events

  • Special events

    Votes: 25 24.8%
  • More leagues

    Votes: 22 21.8%
  • Prizes

    Votes: 20 19.8%
  • Trophies

    Votes: 10 9.9%
  • Forum trophies

    Votes: 6 5.9%
  • Livestreams

    Votes: 18 17.8%
  • Easier access

    Votes: 59 58.4%
  • Other? post your reason

    Votes: 12 11.9%
Back
Top