Is this possible the best race sim around atm?

Msportdan

@Simberia
Ive spent the last few days trying a few sims.

AC
RF2 (my fav so far but..)
GSC
Raceroom

and to say I think GSCe is the most authentic sim out there. Ok the visuals aren't on the level AC or RR, but everything else makes up for it. The ffb the sense of immersion in the cockpit the AI... I just want to thank Reiza and what a job they've done with (lets just say) old engine.,. It does put Rf2 in shame in places, and even AC.

carry on reiza the great and hard work is much appreciated here down in Essex lol

cheers guys

Whats your thoughts. on this and other sims atm.?
 
Last edited:
There is a setting in the realfeal.ini that turns on a voice telling you the numerical value. Im not home right now so i cant tell you exactly what it is. But whrn you change the settings in game a voice would say "maxforce 2500" or whatever you are changing
Ya, I remember this working with older version of RealFeel with rFactor 1, but it doesn't work in GSC even when the audio is enabled in the INI file.

In a race-sim I don't care about the graphics, but how much the physics can make me believe I'm driving the actual car.
That is, imho, the very 1st thing a race-sim must do.

So it's a yes for me. GSC and iRacing are at the top right now for me. Maybe GSC has meh-to-great graphics but who the hell cares? It is immersive as sh*t.
You forgot rFactor 2, those 3 are easily at the top, overall.

GSC is inferior to RF2 though (as amazing as GSC is :) ) - and no, I'm not talking about the extra features of rF2 like real dynamically generated clouds, rubbering-in of tracks, drying lines, etc. etc. etc. I just mean in the pure driving, you can truly feel it in both the car-physics and wheel-FFB.

I didn't notice this too much as I used to switch back and forth often, between RF2 and GSCE, but after spending almost a month with just RF2, going back to GSC was a huge shock / "wake-up" call to me on just how bloody brilliant rFactor 2 truly is and advanced over RF1 physics (including GSCE) regardless of what numbers you plug into the RF1 physics engine. You could really feel and sense the rFactor 1-ishness in the GSC vehicle dynamics when going back to it after spending a whole month playing only rFactor 2. The RF2 vehicle behavior (physics) and FFB are on another level that even the very, very, best RF1-engine based sims/mods cannot touch.
 
Last edited:
hhhmmm hate to disagree, but i dont think all of rf2s extra "numbers" pay dividends. i much prefer the handling of ex: gsc mini over rf2 clio (even the new version), and isi's development path is horrendous. i.e.: "lets add new stuff and not fix all the broken crap still in the game"

Soon reiza will make their engine as good as rf2 engine is imo/
 
hhhmmm hate to disagree, but i dont think all of rf2s extra "numbers" pay dividends. i much prefer the handling of ex: gsc mini over rf2 clio (even the new version), and isi's development path is horrendous. i.e.: "lets add new stuff and not fix all the broken crap still in the game"

Soon reiza will make their engine as good as rf2 engine is imo/
I know the RF2 engine as a whole isn't fully matured, but I hardly ever encounter issues. Most issues are totally over-exaggerated; I spend hours upon hours racing it just like I do with GSCE.

I was talking pure vehicle behavior and FFB, at a certain point in all GSCE cars, you can feel old RF1 physics behavior no matter the mod, the car, anything. The pivot rotation of vehicles, the way the tyres slip and slide in certain situations, the way the chassis moves about once you get it unsettled a certain amount, the way the rotation stops or continues-on in correlation with your correction, the way the tyre unloads and drops off or regains grip as you play with the slip angle, I could go on and on (like in any pre-RF2 ISI engine based game, not just GSCE).

RF2 is an another level. Once you push the RF1/GSC car hard enough or do certain things with it, you really get exposed to much more physics flaws/irregularities/"weirdness" that are rooted in the pre-RF2 physics engine (not that the RF2 physics engine [or any simracing physics engine] is perfect, but it really is on another level). You can also feel and sense just how much dynamically alive the handling, tyre model, and just overall physics/vehicle behavior is as a whole with the RF2 vehicle dynamics.

And trust me, I'm not "fanboy", you should see how much complaining and moaning I do in the RF2 threads.
 
Last edited:
hhhmmmm not sure im seeing what you are...

but the mind is a powerfull thing you know, can make you think somethings there...
Lol, ya, my mind is making me experience completely different physics behavior in RF2 compared to what I have experienced with over 10 years of pre-RF2 ISI-engine based sims, lol right..........

You clearly have no sense of car physics if you think RF2 is no different than pre-RF2 ISI-engine based physics (RF1, GSCE, Simbin stuff, ARCA SimRacing, etc. etc.), and that I'm delusional and making-up/seeing things that aren't there. Maybe you're just blind rather than me delusional, have you ever thought about that?
 
no need to be like that..

They are both the same engine in essence, but with added tyre deformation and what not. Does it really make that much difference? Rf2 car feel is good but its not miles better than gsc, if only slightly. I also prefer gsc ffb, rfs feels unbalanced and notchy.
Your saying your feeling all these different sensations through a plastic wheel and a pc monitor, just makes me laugh a bit.
i was just saying placebo happens a lot with sim racers.
 
Last edited:
no need to be like that..
It was you who initially began with the delusional/placebo comments.

They are both the same engine in essence, but with added tyre deformation and what not. Does it really make that much difference?
Both the same engine but just with some tyre deformation added? This is a joke right? The tyre model is a completely different model, it's not just RF1 "with added tyre deformation and what not", not even close. That statement from you alone shows how little you know about the subject. I'm not sure where you got brainwashed into thinking that RF2 physics are just RF1 with some tyre deformation added.

On top of that, the suspension and steering model have improved, aero model, more support for different suspension types, the modeling of the car's motor has improved, etc. There are all sorts of further improvements in the underlying physics engine.

But even ignoring all the other areas of underlying physics engine improvements, just a tyre model change on it's own can bring about MASSIVE physics changes. Infact, tyres are, by far, the most important and most difficult thing to get right when it comes to vehicle dynamics modelling.

Your saying your feeling all these different sensations through a plastic wheel and a pc monitor, just makes me laugh a bit.
i was just saying placebo happens a lot with sim racers.
Is this another joke? I mean, really? I'm almost speechless...

I'm not sure what games you play, or how experienced and/or good you are at simracing, but I and MANY, MANY people, can feel the difference from changing the front wing by just 1 single click, or the brake balance by 0.5%, let alone two different physics engines.

Also, It doesn't even have to have anything to do with FFB. Most people can tell the difference between driving Netkar Pro, RFactor 1, IRacing, etc. etc. even with a non-FFB wheel.

Do you even play/drive these games? I'm assuming you're quite experienced since you seem quite active on these forums, but, honestly, with the statements you made in your last post, I'm almost lead into believing that you haven't spent more than a few hours, total, in your life driving sims.
 
Last edited:
just my personal feelings, i have rf2 and gsce, i dont feel the massive differences you describe, ive only been pc "gaming" for 2 years, the rest consoles mainly that being race pro.

I prefer gsc handling, as i drive in real life and what i feel in a real car i can relate to more in gsc than rf2. But more than 20 mins in rf2 gives me the ump, because its just a tech demo not a fully working sim, nothing in it works as advertised.

Maybe isi tried to hard and actually ruined the true feeling of driving a car. Maybe your the one brainwashed into thinking rf2 is more than it actually. is.

But hey your a obvious expert im not gonna argue,....
 
Last edited:
We all want different things from sims and we're all entitled to have our own opinion, none are more valid or more wrong than the other. Insults and name calling aren't going to change anyone's opinion. :thumbsup: (In fact, I don't think anyone on the internet has ever successfully changed another person's opinion about anything, though MANY have tried)
 
just my personal feelings, i have rf2 and gsce, i dont feel the massive differences you describe, ive only been pc "gaming" for 2 years, the rest consoles mainly that being race pro.

I prefer gsc handling, as i drive in real life and what i feel in a real car i can relate to more in gsc than rf2. But more than 20 mins in rf2 gives me the ump, because its just a tech demo not a fully working sim, nothing in it works as advertised.

Maybe isi tried to hard and actually ruined the true feeling of driving a car. Maybe your the one brainwashed into thinking rf2 is more than it actually. is.

But hey your a obvious expert im not gonna argue,....
Lol, wow, ok, sure...

I'm not going to spend hours making a humungous thread analyzing all sorts of areas of vehicle dynamics where the RF2 engine shows massive improvements over the RF1 engine; with the statements you've made already (especially the 2nd half of post #129, but overall, really), I feel you wouldn't even begin to have a glimpse of understanding or relating to anything I'm even talking about anyways (this is based directly on your remarks, rather than arrogance on my part).

Anyways, I'm glad to see you make the move to PC gaming, and even happier that you enjoy GSCE. GSCE, FT, and Reiza are all awesome. Have a good day, and happy racing :)
 
thread analyzing all sorts of areas of vehicle dynamics where the RF2 engine shows massive improvements over the RF1 engine;

no seriously i would like to see this..

Consider this a sim learning curve for me.

I can tell the difference between Raceroom and AC and GSC/RF2 (in order of realism for me)

But not much between the gmotor titles, only ffb.
 
Last edited:
I'd actually be interested in friendly comparison between them as well. I'm also new to PC sims and I've heard very mixed things about rF2. I recently got GSCE and enjoy it so far but would be interested to know what exactly the rF2 engine has improved on it. I also have R3E and AC (and iRacing but I don't play it) and while I like them, none of them have hit the "sweet spot" for what I'd like from a sim.
 
@Msportdan @Brandon Wright guys, don't know If any of this information is any good to you to get to understand the power and difference with RF2

No problem mate,

Real road is rubber and rubber marble build up on the race track.
It has a big influence on force feedback, grip level and general feel of the car and track.

If you start rF2 with a car/track combo the first time. the track will probably be a "green track". It has a feel of a very dusty slippery track. In real live most tracks are frequently driven on and they are never "green" unless the track just build and driven on the first time.

to see the effect of real road: Lauch rF2 with a car on a track with some AI and press "ctrl-x".
after a few minutes you'll see the track surface change. On some tracks the visual rubber line is a bit overdone. But the effect is quite good.

"ctrl-x: is time acceleration" Don't press race unless you are an alien. :p Press ctrl-x again to stop the time acceleration first.

The AI always drive the exact same line, so there will be a very small stroke of rubber. And if you let the AI drive around for an hour, the marble build up is very noticeable.
But I mostly drive online with people, and they don't drive the exact same line. So the rubber build up is more spread and the marbles are more driven away.

Rain has an influence on the real road too. If a wet track starts to dry out, there will be a dry-line first and track rubber is flushed away a bit.

TIp: how to use real road offline without starting on a green track every time.


- start a session on a track offline and do a few laps (this creates a "user-autosaved" real-road.
- stop the session
- before you start the session again set the weather to "scripted"
- then you can select the "user-autosaved" real road.
- do this for every session. (practice, quali, race)

result: every time you want to do some laps on track you'll start with the real-road you've ended.
note: if you have driven a online session on that same track: it uses that real road and is saves the roal road you end with.
So if you end a online session on a wet track, you'll start your session offline on a wet track.

Welcome to the club: you just discovered the power of rF2. :geek:

14566257632_ede95252f5_b.jpg

Jim
Edit: (my uninformed remark about # of threads deleted) dor

I'll fire some ideas at you.
a)Start in a car thats predictable in handling on a track you know well. The ISI GT4, GT3 would be a good place to start. The Ferrari 458 Challenge and the Spec Miata also. I was at Spa tonight in this car and it was wicked.
The F2 car reacts quickly and doesnt generate much feel (and with little or no caster adj you cant make it generate much feel. Stick wiith a car until you have mastered it. EG I have done over 200 laps of Silverstone in the Lola LMP1 to do that.
b) Use a low powered car and no assists to learn to drive it then add power/complexity as you can manage. Career mode in RF1 did that nicely but RF2 hasnt got it yet.
c )Get a heap of laps in at Nazareth speedway, might sound silly but you can slide away to your hearts content, fiddle with setup and get to know what a car does at the limit. With a such a short lap it gives you much time cornering.
d) Use accellerated real road to get a lot of rubber down.
e) If you are not experienced with setup, pick a car that has setups available here.
f) Learn about fore aft weight shift and control. Same for braking.
g) Identify at what part of the corner you are not in control (braking, turn in Mid corner, exit.) Identify what is happening IE oversteer understeer, brake lock up.
h) Experiment with different steering lock angles in the garage, you might get better feel. Same with brake force, balance.
i) Adjust AI speed to your speed so U can race them, get some serious lappage then gradually increase them.
j) Read Ramon Van Rijns setup guide and start to get a feel for set up.
k) read all you can on real world technique.
l) FFB smoothing is for Logitech wheels mainly. If your wheel doesnt rattle put it on zero.
m) Enjoy your progression!

rFactor is a racing simulator developer: click here, who wants to reproduce a full racing experience from a to z. In my experience it can give all challenges a real driver has to overcome: Visual limitations at night, changing road conditions, tire management. This is why it's popular for endurance races.

Marc Webber's LeMans simulator test: click here: You can almost do the exact same thing at home: :geek:
You'll need the audi: click here, and the track, click here (track layout is an old version)

All these features has to be calculated. So under the hood it's a powerful simulator. A professional simulator doesn't alway's look hyper realistic, but the feeling should be realistic, and the challenges the driver has to overcome has to be realistic. These things are more importent to me that putting down a perfect hot-lap in a beautiful looking sim.

But i do agree that it's not a plug and play game out of the box. :redface:

A lot of stuff about real road and how it works and why you may find it's different ffb etc to what you are used to.
 
As Renato explained in the interview, the complexity of a sim is not a sufficient thing If you want realism. You can have a really complex physic engine but being unable to use it correctly.
So the question is not really how many parameters are there in a tire model, but what figures you will put in them.
So asking what sim is the best in not the right question. The question is who is able to handle all these parameters correctly. On my side I am more convinced by a GSC rather than an AC in term of physic mastering. Perhaps the physic engine of AC is deeper, but I don't really like what Kunos does with it. Perhaps they need more time...
 

Latest News

Online or Offline racing?

  • 100% online racing

    Votes: 96 7.8%
  • 75% online 25% offline

    Votes: 130 10.5%
  • 50% online 50% offline

    Votes: 175 14.2%
  • 25% online 75% offline

    Votes: 348 28.2%
  • 100% offline racing

    Votes: 480 38.9%
  • Something else, explain in comment

    Votes: 5 0.4%
Back
Top