Automobilista 2 | Physics Updates and New Content in v1.3

Automobilista 2 November 2021 Update 01.jpg
A significant physics update for Automobilista 2 is coming this month, along with plenty of new content.

Reiza Studios has shared the second batch of news concerning what is coming to Automobilista 2 this month via a post on their official forums. Much of the post centred around their improvements to the driving physics and force feedback. Version 1.3 will allow Reiza to create much more elaborate and authentic driveline physics for the cars in the game. There is also going to be a new default FFB profile that is selectable from the settings menu. A bug found by Reiza has delayed the release of the update, but it is still expected to be public before the end of the month.

Content was another focus of the post, and the highlight of the upcoming content is part 2 of the Racin' USA DLC. Part 1 included GTE cars plus three American tracks, and part 2 will follow a similar format. Three distinct years of Indycar/Champcar will be added to the title as part of the Formula USA car class, plus three tracks. Cleveland and Watkins Glen are the first two confirmed tracks, and there is a third that Reiza is unable to share quite yet due to licensing.

The two Volkswagen cars that are currently available as part of a demo version of AMS2 will also be added to the main game this month.

Finally, another significant bit of news is that Reiza is rolling out the first iteration of a multiplayer ranking system. Players will begin to earn ratings that will help group them more evenly for online racing.

Hit the spoiler button below to read part 2 of the Automobilista 2 November Development Update (source).

Part 2 of our November Development Update has finally arrived with some fresh good news for Automobilista 2 in our final development sprint of 2021!

And what a run of weeks it has been so far - not only have we managed to hit some of the important developments we had planned for the month, we also managed to find and are in process of resolving some other significant issues along the way - in fact our plan had been to publish this article already with our first big game update of November, however spotting a rather sizeable physics issue just a few hours before the update was meant to be deployed has forced us back to the drawing board for a few more days - the new Automobilista V1.3 update is expected to arrive towards the end of this week.

On the plus side, V1.3 will now pack even further value to what is already a landmark update for AMS2 - so let´s get into some of what we have been working on these past few weeks!

AMS2 Demo With VW TSI Cup by Acelerados Now Available

Our collaboration with Volkswagen Brasil and the Acelerados Channel has come to fruition this past week with the release of the AMS2 Demo featuring the new VW TSI Cup, bringing the VW Polo & Virtus production cars to AMS2 - more details on this release here.

The delay on our new game update unfortunately has meant the addition of these cars to the main game have also been slightly held back - do look forward to their arrival later this week however with the release of V1.3!

The Big Physics Overhaul of AMS2 V1.3

As touched upon in Pt1 of the November Dev Update, physics & FFB are receiving a pretty substantial overhaul this month similarly to what happened earlier in the year in the V1.2 dev cycle, maximizing further knowledge of the Madness tire & driveline models we have gathered in recent months.

Beginning with the latest finding - the issue spotted just this weekend forcing the delay of the update is nothing more than a simple syntax error that resulted in some of the tire models in AMS2 using components that didn´t belong to them. This error - the type you hope not to spot years into the development of the sim - is nevertheless the type of thing that can happen when you are working on someone else´s technology, and part of a learning curve that sometimes can stretch longer than one would have preferred. The silver lining here of course is that spotting and correcting this error will lead to even further progress to what was already proving a very extensive revision of all tire models in AMS2, which combined with the driveline developments have already led to all cars driving substantially better than the current release to one degree or another.

On to the driveline developments: as with tires, we have been constantly learning more details about the complex driveline system in the Madness Engine - a physical model based on masses, friction coefficients, stiffnesses and pairings, which if not configured correctly for each car can easily result in various handling issues.

The first major development here is fine tuning clutch LSD disc friction coefficients to eliminate the infamous "sticky" behavior of the differential on some cars, which could lead to the car balance suddenly changing mid-corner; the differential operation is much smoother now, remaining closed when it should, and opening immediately and yet gradually based on your effective locking amount from preload, ramp angles and amount of clutches.

The second important improvement was made to the clutch engagement formula itself - thus far, preload setting in LSD diffs had far too much importance and ramp angles relatively very little. Reason for this laid in a bug in the underlying mathematical formula combining forces from these two setup factors. With that legacy bug corrected, it´s been possible and in fact necessary to update all default differential setups to more sensible ones.

One neat example is the Caterham clutch LSD that could now get inspiration from a real-life Titan LSD designed for Caterhams: a 30/90 ramp configuration with preload adjusted for each driver's needs. This maintains the Caterham's trademark throttle steer character, while users will remain able to fine tune preload to suit their lift-off behavior tastes.

Furthermore on the driveline topic, we have been literally "flexing the muscles" of the engine by introducing driveline elasticity - with multiple moving parts between the engine and driven wheels (each with its own finite stiffness) the forces applied on these parts can be immense, as gearboxes multiply engine torque - one can often hear these dynamics at play on real onboard videos as engine noise and transmission whine oscillating as the whole driveline acts like a giant spring under changing loads.

We have revised stiffnesses and driveshaft weights in multiple classes, and in multiple points in their drivelines. This creates an immersive and organic effect that fully depends on what is going on in the physical simulation. If you stomp on the throttle in 1st gear, you will hear revs jump up as the driveline tenses up. Lift suddenly, and the driveline releases its tension audibly. Driving over bumps the engine and transmission noises will oscillate smoother than before as the connection between tires, gearbox and engine isn’t as direct.

This isn’t purely for immersion purposes either, as a slight delay in response between driven wheels and engine can have subtle effects on handling - it means for example that tire slip and engine RPM aren’t the only buffers for sudden forces, which can also dampen some sharp jolts in bumpy braking zones.

In the video below comparing a lap with the Mercedes AMG GT3 around Nürburgring in V1.2.5.1 (left) vs the current AMS2 Beta (right) overlayed with wheel speed telemetry, you can see and hear the subtle but noticeable results of the developments described above:


All of these substantial physics developments along with some adjustments in setup options have also led to a big revision of default setups on all cars - so further good news is default setups being as reasonably well adjusted as they can possibly be as universal baselines for all tracks and controller types.

It does also mean however it will be critical to reset all your setups one more time upon deployment of the next update - failure to do could result in some very odd setups that will most definitely spoil the cars´ handling.

A small price to pay hopefully for what is all around a really big step in the AMS2 driving experience - while physics development remains always an ongoing process for anyone serious about simulation, in V1.3 the physics will have reached a level of maturity that we are confident represents our very best work in this area to date.

Force Feedback Developments in AMS2 V1.3

AMS2 V1.3 will also introduce developments in the game Force Feedback, with the addition of a new "Default+" profile, parallel to the existing "Default".

FFB can be a somewhat subjective matter - while generally steering FFB in-game should resemble certain traits from real world vehicles - self-centering steering wheel, resistance buildup with more steering angle & ramp up of forces with tire load - in race sims that is somewhat restrictive and often leaves us missing the actual feedback we get in our bodies on a real car through its lateral and longitudinal acceleration. Through FFB one hopes to convey some of that mixed in with the usual steering forces, and the way to do that is where things get subjective.

With the new "Default+" profile we have what we believe to be a good compromise, adding further useful information to what you get on the Default profile.

Aside from additional info provided in Default+ , we also did a lot of work on damping, which is inherent to any steering system and something we strongly advise to be used to some degree as it now doesn´t take anything away from the feedback, instead works in sync with the vehicle you drive - it depends not just on steering velocity, but vehicle velocity, lateral acceleration, tires slip, oversteer. All of that is taken into account on damping, so it is usable and helpful instead of simply providing viscous-like resistance to wheel turning.

While the Default+ is, given FFB´s subjectvity to taste the usage of custom FFB profiles will remain an option, with some interesting and popular work being developed by Karsten Hvidberg and company you may also want to check out.

We had in fact planned to add one of these profiles as a third default option in the game, however we found out that the memory load from FFB system is raised considerably by its presence if there is another profile present in the "custom" slot, leading to glitches.

We do encourage our users who may still be looking for something beyond what our default profiles are offering to give these a try checking out the Automobilista 2 Custom Force Feedback - Overview & Recommendations thread.

AI Development in AMS2 V1.3

AMS2 V1.3 will bring yet another big step for the AI, with an extensive calibration pass to not only match recent player physics development, but also solving several track and car specific performance discrepancies from the current release.

Driver personalities have been extended with some initial parameters defining an AI driver´s ability in managing tire wear, racing in wet weather & cooperating with blue flags.

Furthermore, V1.3 will introduce the option to mod AI driver names, livery assignments & personalities - you can read more about this new feature on this topic moved from the beta subforum for those looking to get an early understanding of how to go about it.

Multiplayer Rating System Hitting Public Beta in V1.3

Last but not least in our big list of V1.3 features is the introduction of the driver profile page alongside the long-awaited Multiplayer Rating System - albeit in Beta stage in this initial release.

The system is heavily based on the legacy system featured in Project Cars 2 with several adjustments - more details about it to be shared in a dedicated thread shortly before release.

We are also working with third party Multiplayer services to best integrate our system with theirs, which should hopefully see the arrival or organized scheduled races in AMS2 in the not-so distant future.

Furthermore, we have also been collecting some valuable feedback from the community for further Multiplayer development, some of which we are pushing to deliver as we progress through the public beta of the MRS - not everything will arrive in a matter of weeks, but we do hope to be fulfilling at least some common requests in the near future.

Racin´ USA Pt2 Arriving Soon!

As previously announced, the second part of the Racin´ USA Expansion Pack is due to be released shortly after V1.3 and before the end of this month.

This time, we will explore what many consider to be the golden years of American single seater racing, as Racin´ USA Pt2 will feature a number of Reynards, Swifts and Lola Indycars & Champ Cars from the 1990s, along with three iconic road courses.

The cars will make up what we will call the "Formula USA" class in the game, in three generations - Gen1 will feature models from the 1995 Indycar season (the last before the series infamously split), Gen2 will have models from the 1998 season when Alex Zanardi reigned supreme, with Gen3 featuring models from 2000 - the performance peak of the Champcar era, enabling historical feats such as Gil de Ferran´s closed course record average speed.

The 3 tracks to feature in the pack will be Watkins Glen (which even though was not raced by these cars during the 1990s, is still one the greatest road courses in the USA fully warranting its place on the pack); the unique Cleveland temporary road course, set on the Burke Lake Front Airport with a fast, flowing and very bumpy layout serving as stage for some memorable wheel-to-wheel battles; and the third one remaining under wraps for a few more days as we finalize some licensing requirements.

Racin´ USA Pt2 itself will be a slightly staggered release - the Gen2 cars along with Cleveland & Watkins Glen will be released at the end of this month, with the remaining models and the third track arriving just before our Christmas wrap-up; there will be further additions to this pack later on in 2022, as the arrival of Racin´ USA Pt3 will introduce oval tracks to Automobilista 2, which will see all Formula USA models in Pt2 receiving their oval spec variants.

While Pt3 of Racin´ USA will take a bit longer than originally planned into 2022, the delay will see more tracks being added to the package than originally planned - at no extra expense for those who already bought the full Racin´ USA Expansion Pack!

Price for Racin´ USA Pt2 will be the same as Pt1 in your local currency.

New Manufacturers Joining the Party!

We are happy to confirm we´re in the final stages of licensing arrangements with Nissan, which should see several models from the brand coming to Automobilista 2 if not already on v1.3, very soon after.

There are at least two more major manufacturer deals we are looking to wrap before the end of the year, all of which leading to various existing classes in the game being expanded with new competitors over the course of 2022 - watch this space!

This covers the main topics we had to bring you on this Dev Update, even if not quite all we have in store for the remainder of the year - we will cover these remaining goodies in our final Dev Update of the year early on December, by which time you will all hopefully already be enjoying AMS2 V1.3 & Racin´ USA Pt2!

Are you excited for this update? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Automobilista 2 001.jpgAutomobilista 2 002.jpgAutomobilista 2 003.jpgAutomobilista 2 005.jpg
About author
Mike Smith
I have been obsessed with sim racing and racing games since the 1980's. My first taste of live auto racing was in 1988, and I couldn't get enough ever since. Lead writer for RaceDepartment, and owner of SimRacing604 and its YouTube channel. Favourite sims include Assetto Corsa Competizione, Assetto Corsa, rFactor 2, Automobilista 2, DiRT Rally 2 - On Twitter as @simracing604

Comments

I saw a couple people innacurately post about AMS2 tracks being copy-pasted from pC2. This is all false except for 1 single case: Azure/Monaco circuit. That track was copied directly as part of the license deal and it is currently being reworked with a new roadmesh and improved visuals.

Every other track made by Reiza is made from scratch. The only thing they have been reusing from pC2 are assets like buildings, barriers, cones and so forth. They put real love into their tracks. You can see it. You can feel it.

The “repeated” tracks aren’t about the engine or saving time, but about popularity and licensing cost or even ease to license (licensing discussions can take years).
 
Last edited:
I'd just like to remind everyone that how many features your sim has or how complex the modeling is doesn't matter nearly as much as how correctly the features work and how accurate models it can produce in practice when it comes to simulation.

It'd be great if the rF2 or AMS2 tire model's accuracy would be proportional to their complexity, but it's not that clear cut in practice. I can't comment on SETA directly (Although I suspect it's much the same due to its nature) but rF2's is basically unusable for any kind of work where you care about accuracy and hence anyone I've ever heard of who uses rF2 seriously runs it in test mode and just uses the rF1 tire model implementation, with its own set of issues but nonetheless is more usable.

Perhaps that kind of more physical based modeling is the way forward but currently it's just not very wise to pretend that the actual results they produce are better than for example AC(C)'s supposedly "simple" tire model.

I'm by no means a tire models expert, but i did an exam on those and actually modeled a motorcycle and its brush tire model in simulink. The reason people tend to use rF1 tires - aka pacejka tire model - it's not because it's accurate, just because it's easy to use: you can easily recreate all the grip/slip curves that you get by testing the real tires in any kind of machine, BUT the tire model itself has no actual phisical meaning, is just what my professor called a "magic curve" that somehow fits data. Brush tire models and their evolutions instead rely on real rubber phisical properties that are a lot more difficult to measure and kept not public by tire manifacturers, so a racing team will obviously prefer to use the pacejka model unless it can hire someone with a very deep knowledge about both tires and tire models, and I suspect those are pretty much already all employed in the simracing industry.

EDIT: that's not to say "phisical tires are better", niels heusinkveld did a very nice video on tire modelling a while ago explaining all pacejka strenghts, it's just to say that those are limited in the kind of things they can simulate and at some point you have to switch to something that takes elasticity and heat into account - SETA is actually VERY advanced in that regard, just difficult to tune, but with the advantage that a lot of things just "emerge" from it without needing to be coded explicitly
 
Last edited:
I'm by no means a tire models expert, but i did an exam on those and actually modeled a motorcycle and its brush tire model in simulink. The reason people tend to use rF1 tires - aka pacejka tire model - it's not because it's accurate, just because it's easy to use: you can easily recreate all the grip/slip curves that you get by testing the real tires in any kind of machine, BUT the tire model itself has no actual phisical meaning, is just what my professor called a "magic curve" that somehow fits data. Brush tire models and their evolutions instead rely on real rubber phisical properties that are a lot more difficult to measure and kept not public by tire manifacturers, so a racing team will obviously prefer to use the pacejka model unless it can hire someone with a very deep knowledge about both tires and tire models, and I suspect those are pretty much already all employed in the simracing industry.
I wouldn't call myself an expert either, nor a professional, but I've been around, so I'll give my take:

The rF1 model isn't a Pacejka model. It's effectively a brush model*, with IIRC a single strand to represent the disc. Similar to the AC model. As far as I can tell it's also semi-empiric like the AC model is. It's not a purely empirical Pacejka model.

Brush models are not necessarily fully physical based nor do they rely on rubber properties necessarily. The rF model is a brush model*. The AC model is a brush model. They do not use predominately physical inputs, like the rF2 "physical" model uses for example.

Most team guys I've talked to use brush models, typically rF1 or AC. Sometimes they input raw Pacejka stuff but it's usually not very drivable.

I'm not sure what OEMs do, their sims are a little bit different, with high tickrates and what seems like quite raw input data, so they might be using more "direct" parameters with perhaps a Pacejka-like model. Definitely not the norm in racing stuff though from what I've been told.

The reason teams use semi-empirical models like the rF and AC one are because they're the only models where you can realistically correlate a tire without having a 100million USD tire model + a few million more dollars worth of tire data.

EDIT: I'm not going to comment on your entire edit apart from A: Yes, more complex =/= more better and B: Heat and elasticity are not inherent to physical based models only. The main distinction is how the input parameters are generated.

In a predominately empirical model, you get data from the tire outputs and correlate your model outputs to that. In a physical model, you effectively run FEA to determine a large part of, or in whole, your parameters.

The *big* advantage of physical based models is they should theoretically do the mechanical stuff accurately if you input right parameters. Pressure sensitivity, stiffnesses, dimension deltas, to some point load sensitivity. It can be very dynamic too.

What they don't do super well IMO is slip, heat. You know, not so important stuff. It's difficult/impossible to keep those correct while also keeping the other stuff correct.

EDIT 2:

* Not 100% on that. There is a good chance I'm wrong. rF1 isn't Pacejka strictly but I can't actually confirm if it's a disc brush model or not. It is Pacejka-esque in the way that it uses curve inputs and can scale it in a relatively simple way. So "Pacejka-like" is perhaps correct.

If someone knows for sure I'd love to know.
 
Last edited:
Charging money for a super inaccurate track from a 6 year old game that is leagues worse than the free laser-scanned AC mod would be pretty bad, yeah
and the next blah blah from anyone who cannot read.
It should be clear since month for people with knowledge, that Reiza starts every track from scratch.
The one and only copy is/was Monaco aka Azure Circuit, that gets a rework with scanned track data in the near future.
So what ?!?
Use brain b4 keyboard :O_o:
 
I saw a couple people innacurately post about AMS2 tracks being copy-pasted from pC2. This is all false except for 1 single case: Azure/Monaco circuit. That track was copied directly as part of the license deal and it is currently being reworked with a new roadmesh and improved visuals.

Every other track made by Reiza is made from scratch. The only thing they have been reusing from pC2 are assets like buildings, barriers, cones and so forth. They put real love into their tracks. You can see it. You can feel it.

The “repeated” tracks aren’t about the engine or saving time, but about popularity and licensing cost or even ease to license (licensing discussions can take years).
It's a big issue these days, inaccurate information and generally comes from the loudest.

People always like to find little issues and make them into something big to take away credit from someone's hard work.

Looking forward to the update......For those who are not, Keep the Noise Down!!
 
Last edited:
Looking trough the dev notes in AMS2 and RF2 I'm amazed at the detail level that went in to the sim engine in the beginning but currently is not been used.
Reiza is getting the hang of the madness engine and not only discovering new features but actually using it.
Studio 397 said that puncture simulation is already in the code but never been used (like a lots of temperature simulation that is not been used for whatever reason).
I applaud reiza for bringing improvement in to the simulation as their understanding of the sim engine gets better, ACC has shown that that's the way of improving you product... Bring small/big improvement whenever your can and your product will steady became better.
Right now AMS2 is my go-to sim racing for multiplayer (still a wreckfest in lap 1 till all trolls leaves), and rfactor2 my go-to for single player / mods.
AC gets rarely boot up, and ACC still a mess in VR in an old pc.
Just wishing for a vr mod for beamNG.
 
D
guess the upcoming AMS2 update could be a further step to push AC+SOL+CSP away from 1st palce. Most simmers are fed up with all its bugs, CTDs, un-BOP'ed racing machines, bad mods and horrible manners in most forums (I won t mention trawa rusty bonny und Co).

So join the party at the end of the week (hopefully)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm by no means a tire models expert, but i did an exam on those and actually modeled a motorcycle and its brush tire model in simulink. The reason people tend to use rF1 tires - aka pacejka tire model - it's not because it's accurate, just because it's easy to use: you can easily recreate all the grip/slip curves that you get by testing the real tires in any kind of machine, BUT the tire model itself has no actual phisical meaning, is just what my professor called a "magic curve" that somehow fits data. Brush tire models and their evolutions instead rely on real rubber phisical properties that are a lot more difficult to measure and kept not public by tire manifacturers, so a racing team will obviously prefer to use the pacejka model unless it can hire someone with a very deep knowledge about both tires and tire models, and I suspect those are pretty much already all employed in the simracing industry.

EDIT: that's not to say "phisical tires are better", niels heusinkveld did a very nice video on tire modelling a while ago explaining all pacejka strenghts, it's just to say that those are limited in the kind of things they can simulate and at some point you have to switch to something that takes elasticity and heat into account - SETA is actually VERY advanced in that regard, just difficult to tune, but with the advantage that a lot of things just "emerge" from it without needing to be coded explicitly
Well explained. Finally someone bringing a bit of engineering science into the conversation :D
 
Brilliant update. You can confirm it because everytime that this sim makes a big step forward AC fanatic lovers immediately arrive to cry and explain why AC is sooooo "perfect". Keep working hard Reiza, you are doing it really good.
 
Last edited:
Serious question - what difference does it make? Let's say that they just recycled Watkins Glen from PC2. Would that be so bad? I read variations of your comment/question a lot around AMS2 and I wonder why that's an issue?

Incidentally, Renato has explained how they create tracks even when they do start from PC2. There's enough work to do that it is effectively brand-new.
Out with the old, in with the new.
 
Brilliant update. You can confirm it because everytime that this sim makes a big step forward AC fanatic lovers immediately arrive to cry and explain why AC is sooooo "perfect". Keep working hard Reiza, you are doing it really good.
The first AC-related post wasn't even posted by an "AC fanatic". :rolleyes:
 
I wouldn't call myself an expert either, nor a professional, but I've been around, so I'll give my take:

The rF1 model isn't a Pacejka model. It's effectively a brush model*, with IIRC a single strand to represent the disc. Similar to the AC model. As far as I can tell it's also semi-empiric like the AC model is. It's not a purely empirical Pacejka model.

Brush models are not necessarily fully physical based nor do they rely on rubber properties necessarily. The rF model is a brush model*. The AC model is a brush model. They do not use predominately physical inputs, like the rF2 "physical" model uses for example.

Most team guys I've talked to use brush models, typically rF1 or AC. Sometimes they input raw Pacejka stuff but it's usually not very drivable.

I'm not sure what OEMs do, their sims are a little bit different, with high tickrates and what seems like quite raw input data, so they might be using more "direct" parameters with perhaps a Pacejka-like model. Definitely not the norm in racing stuff though from what I've been told.

The reason teams use semi-empirical models like the rF and AC one are because they're the only models where you can realistically correlate a tire without having a 100million USD tire model + a few million more dollars worth of tire data.

EDIT: I'm not going to comment on your entire edit apart from A: Yes, more complex =/= more better and B: Heat and elasticity are not inherent to physical based models only. The main distinction is how the input parameters are generated.

In a predominately empirical model, you get data from the tire outputs and correlate your model outputs to that. In a physical model, you effectively run FEA to determine a large part of, or in whole, your parameters.

The *big* advantage of physical based models is they should theoretically do the mechanical stuff accurately if you input right parameters. Pressure sensitivity, stiffnesses, dimension deltas, to some point load sensitivity. It can be very dynamic too.

What they don't do super well IMO is slip, heat. You know, not so important stuff. It's difficult/impossible to keep those correct while also keeping the other stuff correct.

EDIT 2:

* Not 100% on that. There is a good chance I'm wrong. rF1 isn't Pacejka strictly but I can't actually confirm if it's a disc brush model or not. It is Pacejka-esque in the way that it uses curve inputs and can scale it in a relatively simple way. So "Pacejka-like" is perhaps correct.

If someone knows for sure I'd love to know.
Thanks for the elaborate the reply, i knew i was oversimplifying by calling rf/AC just Pacejka, but i meant that they don't have a discretization of carcass/surface allowing singe tire elements to heat and deform separately like in the purely phisical models.

WHat i don't agree with you is about phisical models being worse ar modelling slip: I find rF2 the best sim for drifting and used to find pCars2 (i know i'll get lots of disagreement here) the most driveable sim when you get over the car's limit.
I have no experience with a real car on slick tires, but i would expect it to not become completely out of control at every mistake, all the karts i've driven were MUCH easier than any sim counterpart in that regard (i know, karts also have limits with rigid-body simulations, would love to drive one in BeamNG).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the elaborate the reply, i knew i was oversimplifying by calling rf/AC just Pacejka, but i meant that they don't have a discretization of carcass/surface allowing singe tire elements to heat and deform separately like in the purely phisical models.

WHat i don't agree with you is about phisical models being worse ar modelling slip: I find rF2 the best sim for drifting and used to find pCars2 (i know i'll get lots of disagreement here) the most driveable sim when you get over the car's limit.
I have no experience with a real car on slick tires, but i would expect it to not become completely out of control at every mistake, all the karts i've driven were MUCH easier than any sim counterpart in that regard (i know, karts also have limits with rigid-body simulations, would love to drive one in BeamNG).
Cphys has a surface + carcass model for heat and produces a fairly accurate thermal output modeling possibility. It's not something inherent to physical models.

You also don't *need* the carcass to deform separately from the tread; you can produce all of the slip and flex behavior accurately with just the one contact point on the tread. I know people who have coded a "proper" flex model with all of the independent axis and it just doesn't make a real difference even in cars where you should be able to see it the easiest. You'd never even notice it on any tintop car.

ISImotor tire model indeed has a bunch of issues in transient handling which makes it very oversteery/peaky; AC on the other hand is maybe even a tad *too* easy over the limit. Although that has a lot to do with just the car model itself. rF2 is pretty much objectively way too lenient over the limit and leads to some really funny stuff when driving in a more optimal manner.

In terms of measurable accuracy, you're going to have a tough time to correlate steady state slip and load parameters while also having the mechanical parameters accurate in a physical tire model tire. It's not about how it feels, it's about how close the outputs can become to the outputs you need to match your telemetry.

Of course 99.9% of sim users don't actually care at all how accurate their sim is and I'd wager maybe 90% of physics modders also don't, so what I'm saying might sound like crazy talk.
 
It really makes no sense to compare AC with SOL, CSP and etc, vs AMS2.

Kunos didn't paid a cent to modders and the fact that you need to install so many 3rd party things to make it good tells a lot about it IMO.
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Mike Smith
Article read time
2 min read
Views
31,488
Comments
169
Last update

Are you buying car setups?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Back
Top