BMW M4 GT3 Coming to rFactor 2

Richard Wilks said:

Good, glad to see that sorted, you dont have the data, but even by your estimation, chassissim and rf1 are still more used than AC. Well i guess whoever wants to believe you on that, can.

As for rf2 and its tire model, its hard, and time consuming yes. Nobody here denied that. Nor did i ever said it was more or less used than anything else. But again just because it isn't as pratical, it doesnt it make it more or less wrong does it? You just dont know, and you can't be bothered to find out. So saying "its worse", is just intellectually dishonest.


This is the proverbial changing of the goalposts. Sure, we can indeed even agree that for such a rapid pace of changes that you need to test, rf2 isnt the most practical, due to the time involved. But that merely ties in with that i said before, that "the best" is a very big large, statement to make without any specifics. Still, thjat says nothing about the capabilities of the possible correlation one could achieve with the rf2 model, if one would take the time to do so.

Click to expand...

They are but I would also argue that using the market share to prove anything about the validity of simulation is tangential and invokes the "is-ought" logical fallacy (I would say the same thing to some of Arch's arguments).

"the best for a serious use case" has all of the contingencies I've mentioned; there are no moving goalposts, the discussion since I first participated in the thread has been about professional/serious use. And I maintain that it is absolutely worse for that use case.

"You just dont know, and you can't be bothered to find out" Assumptions and projections...

That lack of depth in material definitions in the RF2 model is why this isn't really a "you don't know and need to take the time to try this" argument, it's a "this is fundamentally flawed in a way that doesn't necessitate further analysis" argument. RF2 is a case of trying to replace a comparatively simple model (semi empirical a la AC/RF1) with something that isn't complex enough to achieve its goal, and thus takes a step backward in the process. And again, the simulator is about more than the tire model (such as all of the things I mentioned in a previous post, in addition to others like a lack of custom traction control algorithms, etc).

To that end, RF2 is fine for how it's sold, as a realistic consumer driving sim, and I'm not degrading the sim or its users. But I maintain it does not retain such utility in a professional/serious simulation environment.

Richard Wilks said:

Just because you can't input somethings directly, doesnt mean they are not modelled or accounted for.

Again, lack of proper comparison data is what is needed. Nor you or him can provide it. So stop derailing other game's threads.

Edit: and oh, i am sorry i am not part of your master's fanclub. You see, i have this bad habit of not getting impressed easily.

Click to expand...

There are things it does not include in its parametrization that cannot just "already be accounted for"; if they are, they are guesses/blanket approximations and a source of hardcode error (ie error that can never be fixed, only masked/offset by other errors).

Richard Wilks said:

Edit: and oh, i am sorry i am not part of your master's fanclub. You see, i have this bad habit of not getting impressed easily.

Click to expand...

Must we devolve to the level of children in this discussion?

mclarenf1papa said:

They are but I would also argue that using the market share to prove anything about the validity of simulation is tangential and invokes the "is-ought" logical fallacy (I would say the same thing to some of Arch's arguments).

"the best for a serious use case" has all of the contingencies I've mentioned; there are no moving goalposts, the discussion since I first participated in the thread has been about professional/serious use. And I maintain that it is absolutely worse for that use case.

"You just dont know, and you can't be bothered to find out" Assumptions and projections...

That lack of depth in material definitions in the RF2 model is why this isn't really a "you don't know and need to take the time to try this" argument, it's a "this is fundamentally flawed in a way that doesn't necessitate further analysis" argument. RF2 is a case of trying to replace a comparatively simple model (semi empirical a la AC/RF1) with something that isn't complex enough to achieve its goal, and thus takes a step backward in the process. And again, the simulator is about more than the tire model (such as all of the things I mentioned in a previous post, in addition to others like a lack of custom traction control algorithms, etc).

To that end, RF2 is fine for how it's sold, as a realistic consumer driving sim, and I'm not degrading the sim or its users. But I maintain it does not retain such utility in a professional/serious simulation environment.

There are things it does not include in its parametrization that cannot just "already be accounted for"; if they are, they are guesses/blanket approximations and a source of hardcode error (ie error that can never be fixed, only masked/offset by other errors).


Must we devolve to the level of children in this discussion?

Click to expand...

You are going in circles now and i wont go chasing you in yet another tirade of "just trust me, i know" without anything meaningfull to back it up. That is your opinion, which could never be anything else, since by your own admission, your hacked version of AC is now what pays your bills. So let's just leave it at that. And no, i am sorry, your "credencials" don't replace the aforementioned hard data. But its still interesting why you felt the need to come and "fight" the rf2 fans in their own thread with that, once you saw the resident troublemaker getting a taste of his own medicine yet again.

As for the children part, well, if people behave like children, they are treated as children, like your pal there, simple as that. I also didnt want to even enter the hostility camp with you, but your need to come shout your achievements over anything actually meaningfull, as if that would silence me, or others, was jarring to say the least.

Richard Wilks said:

You are going in circles now and i wont go chasing you in yet another tirade of "just trust me, i know" without anything meaningfull to back it up. That is your opinion, which could never be anything else, since by your own admission, your hacked version of AC is now what pays your bills. So let's just leave it at that. And no, i am sorry, your "credencials" don't replace the aforementioned hard data. But its still interesting why you felt the need to come and "fight" the rf2 fans in their own thread with that, once you saw the resident troublemaker getting a taste of his own medicine yet again.

As for the children part, well, if people behave like children, they are treated as children, like your pal there, simple as that. I also didnt want to even enter the hostility camp with you, but your need to come shout your achievements over anything actually meaningfull, as if that would silence me, or others, was jarring to say the least.

Click to expand...

What do you want him to do? A run-down of how FEA works, every little detail at a time, breaking down what kind of additions rF2 would need and why the lack of them is an issue? Cool idea, actually.

Kyuubeey said:

What do you want him to do? A run-down of how FEA works, every little detail at a time, breaking down what kind of additions rF2 would need and why the lack of them is an issue? Cool idea, actually.

Click to expand...

Yes, and he can make a nice presentation about it. Lets see how that goes.

Kyuubeey said:

Yeah, it's even so good that nobody serious uses it.

Click to expand...

This was your first contribution in this thread. Aparently someone saying "rf2 tire model is the best" grinds your gears so much you need to come here start yet another shitshow for it. You are the pure definition of a rabid fanboy. "nobody can like another game except my favorite game!" springs to mind.

Like i said, its disappoiting that someone with at least some work done feel the need to come here back the likes of you.

Richard Wilks said:

Yes, and he can make a nice presentation about it. Lets see how that goes.





This was your first contribution in this thread. Aparently someone saying "rf2 tire model is the best" grinds your gears so much you need to come here start yet another shitshow for it. You are the pure definition of a rabid fanboy. "nobody can like another game except my favorite game!" springs to mind.

Like i said, its disappoiting that someone with at least some work done feel the need to come here back the likes of you.

Click to expand...

I dunno, I'm not the one who got insanely angry at that comment, which wasn't even that serious, yet does hold some truth to it apparently because of how angry everyone got.

Also nice ad hominem. Make sure to insult my hypothetical appearance too next time. I'm relatively short so I suggest using that.

Richard Wilks said:

You are going in circles now and i wont go chasing you in yet another tirade of "just trust me, i know" without anything meaningfull to back it up. That is your opinion, which could never be anything else, since by your own admission, your hacked version of AC is now what pays your bills. So let's just leave it at that. And no, i am sorry, your "credencials" don't replace the aforementioned hard data. But its still interesting why you felt the need to come and "fight" the rf2 fans in their own thread with that, once you saw the resident troublemaker getting a taste of his own medicine yet again.

As for the children part, well, if people behave like children, they are treated as children, like your pal there, simple as that. I also didnt want to even enter the hostility camp with you, but your need to come shout your achievements over anything actually meaningfull, as if that would silence me, or others, was jarring to say the least.

Click to expand...

There's not really data to post for a number of the things I'm talking about. It's not that I don't have data, it's that it's just conceptual analysis of software... If it's missing important features, you don't need a PhD or a research project to recognize that the one without missing features is at a distinct advantage. Even if you exclude the tire model from the equation, that point stands. And again, if there was a better solution available than AC, I would be using it. AC doesn't pay my bills, my work does; it's not dependent on the simulation package (and I've used pretty much all of the ones available to a fairly reasonable extent).

I didn't start any "fighting" and the only reason my credentials were even brought up is because they were questioned by someone in the thread after I posted something to directly further the discussion. And in any case, god forbid someone elaborates on why they might have the background to make certain claims, right?

Richard Wilks said:

Yes, and he can make a nice presentation about it. Lets see how that goes.





This was your first contribution in this thread. Aparently someone saying "rf2 tire model is the best" grinds your gears so much you need to come here start yet another shitshow for it. You are the pure definition of a rabid fanboy. "nobody can like another game except my favorite game!" springs to mind.

Like i said, its disappoiting that someone with at least some work done feel the need to come here back the likes of you.

Click to expand...

While I have written a couple of FEA programs, I don't think it would be particularly worth the time to describe the principles of FEA, nor helpful to the discussion. To give an example of what I mean re: inadequate material definitions, the temperature sensitivities of material properties are not adequate for the type of simulation RF2's model aims to achieve. RF2 does linear interpolation between two points which is not really enough for the temperature ranges seen in tire simulation, especially in edge case circumstances (drifting, etc).

mclarenf1papa said:

There's not really data to post for a number of the things I'm talking about. It's not that I don't have data, it's that it's just conceptual analysis of software... If it's missing important features, you don't need a PhD or a research project to recognize that the one without missing features is at a distinct advantage. Even if you exclude the tire model from the equation, that point stands. And again, if there was a better solution available than AC, I would be using it. AC doesn't pay my bills, my work does; it's not dependent on the simulation package (and I've used pretty much all of the ones available to a fairly reasonable extent).

I didn't start any "fighting" and the only reason my credentials were even brought up is because they were questioned by someone in the thread after I posted something to directly further the discussion. And in any case, god forbid someone elaborates on why they might have the background to make certain claims, right?


View attachment 538637
While I have written a couple of FEA programs, I don't think it would be particularly worth the time to describe the principles of FEA, nor helpful to the discussion. To give an example of what I mean re: inadequate material definitions, the temperature sensitivities of material properties are not adequate for the type of simulation RF2's model aims to achieve. RF2 does linear interpolation between two points which is not really enough for the temperature ranges seen in tire simulation, especially in edge case circumstances (drifting, etc).

Click to expand...

Well my point still stands. its YOUR OPINION this.

Can you understand this simple concept? You make a concept analysis, without actually seeing any results by yourself? Fine, i suppose you dont need to. The two point interpolation is a nice cherry picked case, but unless this is shown to be the case with the actual knowledge of the code behind it, plus the results said code achieves with a big enough sample of data and inputs, it remains just that, a plausible limitation in isolation, and no real conclusion in the behaviour itself as a whole. This is the difference between an educated guess, which i am willing to give you, and a demonstrable, provable scientific conclusion.

Well the funny thing is, your background has nothing to do with proving a claim, nor here, nor anywhere.

Richard Wilks said:

Well my point still stands. its YOUR OPINION this.

Can you understand this simple concept? You make a concept analysis, without actually seeing any results by yourself? Fine, i suppose you dont need to. The two point interpolation is a nice cherry picked case, but unless this is shown to be the case with the actual knowledge of the code behind it, plus the results said code achieves with a big enough sample of data and inputs, it remains just that, a plausible limitation in isolation, and no real conclusion in the behaviour itself as a whole. This is the difference between an educated guess, which i am willing to give you, and a demonstrable, provable scientific conclusion.

Well the funny thing is, your background has nothing to do with proving a claim, nor here, nor anywhere.

Click to expand...

Your rhetoric is incredibly similar to flat earth. So if the model only really accepts inputs that'll produce a linear output, and it only really produces linear outputs experimentally, it's not evidence because every single number combination wasn't thrown at it to make sure?

Oh and before you reply again, let me just end this here.

I haven't seen any work from you bar the stuff for AC. You yourself admit you didnt spend that much time dwelling over rf2. So there is no point in this going on, honestly. I will stop derailing this thread any further.

Thank you for having the time and energy to post some of the stuff you posted here today, @mclarenf1papa - I'm sorry to see the tone devolved the way it did, plus this whole thing has nothing to do with the M4 coming to rF2, but I'm very glad I got the chance to read some of your opinion, insight, and "inside information" on the use of simulation in real-world motorsport and the relative advantages of different platforms and models for that purpose. I've learned lots today, thanks to you. Cheers!

Unless one of you is going to post concrete evidence this M4 physics are fake it was all done in bad faith. Some brought your own agenda where it didn't belong. I hate to see race department turn into another BSIM type trash web site.

mclarenf1papa said:

There's not really data to post for a number of the things I'm talking about. It's not that I don't have data, it's that it's just conceptual analysis of software... If it's missing important features, you don't need a PhD or a research project to recognize that the one without missing features is at a distinct advantage. Even if you exclude the tire model from the equation, that point stands. And again, if there was a better solution available than AC, I would be using it. AC doesn't pay my bills, my work does; it's not dependent on the simulation package (and I've used pretty much all of the ones available to a fairly reasonable extent).

I didn't start any "fighting" and the only reason my credentials were even brought up is because they were questioned by someone in the thread after I posted something to directly further the discussion. And in any case, god forbid someone elaborates on why they might have the background to make certain claims, right?


View attachment 538637
While I have written a couple of FEA programs, I don't think it would be particularly worth the time to describe the principles of FEA, nor helpful to the discussion. To give an example of what I mean re: inadequate material definitions, the temperature sensitivities of material properties are not adequate for the type of simulation RF2's model aims to achieve. RF2 does linear interpolation between two points which is not really enough for the temperature ranges seen in tire simulation, especially in edge case circumstances (drifting, etc).

Click to expand...

Thank you for your valuable informations. I guess it's hard to swallow for some people as it may collapse whole worlds. As for me I believe in what you said.

mclarenf1papa said:

Driver feedback has been very positive and actual data correlation between the sim and real life is quite strong

Click to expand...

This is the most important thing as it can be verified but the numerous testimony about AC here and there. Some people need data to make conclusions ( most will wait their entire life)... Some are more intuitive and can do observations of the events that are surrounding them.

Kyuubeey said:

I dunno, I'm not the one who got insanely angry at that comment, which wasn't even that serious, yet does hold some truth to it apparently because of how angry everyone got.

Also nice ad hominem. Make sure to insult my hypothetical appearance too next time. I'm relatively short so I suggest using that.

Click to expand...

You are just trolling then, and luckily for you mclarenf1pappa stepped in, because clearly you have nothing useful to say anymore. So what's up with coming with some big names in the industry that use AC to develop their cars? I've seen nothing so far either from you or even mclarenf1pappa, just empty claims.

Even if some teams use AC (and I don't deny there aren't any) they may just use it as a training tool for drivers (to learn track for instance). I think I read somewhere that Robert Kubica used rF2 to prepare for his season in IMSA, but don't quote me on that.

When I see a sticker on a racing car, I assume that advertising space was bought by a business to promote their products/services not the other way around. Isn't it how it works in real life? That is why 'iersimulations' sticker on that car doesn't convince me that much.

BTW, this is one example how a business that has some real clients presents it to the world https://heusinkveld.com/clients/
and partners https://heusinkveld.com/partners/esport-teams/
It just has more weight

mclarenf1papa said:

Garbage in always equals garbage out, but I think Arch's point is that because the complexity of the tire's frictional interaction with the road surface is so high, even the correct data plugged into the RF2 model could give poor results. Even simple elastic FEA has errors; simulating a tire involves elastics, thermodynamics, adhesion, wildly dynamic material properties, etc. The error can grow very quickly. RF2 additionally doesn't seem to have enough inputs for its physical model (like some of the dynamics of the properties) to do all of those things correctly, so you're looking at an approximation of an approximation in the best case.

The overarching point is that it's much easier to align a semi-empirical model like e.g. AC to a real tire than a physical model. There are just many more degrees of freedom (i.e. sources of error) in a physical model, which makes the accuracy and parametrization of said model incredibly important. This is not to say you can't produce tires that behave reasonably with the RF2 model, just that for a serious use case, it will not really suffice.

Click to expand...

Unless I stated it wrongly, those are my thoughts as well, an empirical or semi-empirical model is easier to play with. I did not say whether rF2's tool has flaws or not, nor I am interested in it, neither whether or not empirical is better than physical or viceversa, because what I wanted to discuss and reply to was this statement. But that seems to have slipped past.
@mclarenf1papa what do you think of the following statement?

Kyuubeey said:

The only reason you'd use a physical model to generate parameters for a circuit racing car sim is if you don't have any data at all and you just want some kind of tire.

Click to expand...

Ami_M3 said:

You are just trolling then, and luckily for you mclarenf1pappa stepped in, because clearly you have nothing useful to say anymore. So what's up with coming with some big names in the industry that use AC to develop their cars? I've seen nothing so far either from you or even mclarenf1pappa, just empty claims.

Even if some teams use AC (and I don't deny there aren't any) they may just use it as a training tool for drivers (to learn track for instance). I think I read somewhere that Robert Kubica used rF2 to prepare for his season in IMSA, but don't quote me on that.

When I see a sticker on a racing car, I assume that advertising space was bought by a business to promote their products/services not the other way around. Isn't it how it works in real life? That is why 'iersimulations' sticker on that car doesn't convince me that much.

BTW, this is one example how a business that has some real clients presents it to the world https://heusinkveld.com/clients/
and partners https://heusinkveld.com/partners/esport-teams/
It just has more weight

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure IER's business is doing fine enough even without following your surface-level advice. Why do you have to be so rude about it? What is your obsession with teams not using AC as a development tool? Do you have some kind of stake in it? Obviously not, so your insistence makes little sense.

Came for the shitstorm, stayed for the very interesting insights and feedback from Jackson's work!

It would be SO interesting to have pro simulation engineers and veteran amateurs modders present some of their knowledge in a post on RD or something like that, to help us (the interested pleb) get a grasp on what's happening in the background of serious physics models and educate us about what is at stake behind each simulators' choices.

Thank you @mclarenf1papa and @Kyuubeey for sharing the knowledge you have garnered trough work and experimentation.

I feel privileged to have access to some of the arcane science of my favorite Sims. It does not explain everything, but some time shed some lights on what is happening when driving those Sim.

Not so easy, with some of the bigotry always so predominant in any thread.

Any SIM at this point in time and development is not that accurate that we can say this is superior in every way.

At best we can enjoy the one or ones that we feel, in light of our experience and gear, is giving us the simulation that we prefer.

Let's hope it will keep improving, because developers and enthusiast, will keep garner and share knowledge.

Kyuubeey said:

I'm pretty sure IER's business is doing fine enough even without following your surface-level advice. Why do you have to be so rude about it? What is your obsession with teams not using AC as a development tool? Do you have some kind of stake in it? Obviously not, so your insistence makes little sense.

Click to expand...

Another poor attempt from you to direct attention elsewhere, while avoiding the question I asked at the beginning of this banter.

Seriously, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT THIS UP, and this is not your first time either. Look in the mirror. People like you are big part of the reason I don't take everything at the face value. It's not me being rude towards IER. Looking at their website I see a team of five modders that we know from RD. I can either take mclarenf1pappa word for everything he says, or continue being sceptical. I choose the latter based on what I see. At this point I'd rather see something more tangible, but it's their choice (which I respect) not to share it.
I see IER as service provider, basing their simulator on AC. It doesn't support your ridiculous claim the slightest.
I think mclarenf1pappa tried to back you up, with good intentions, because maybe he knows you. He is not the reason we have this conversation, he just got caught up in the middle of it.

You on the other hand pretend to know it all, haunt rF2 threads bringing your 'wisdom' how 'nobody serious' uses that sim and expect everyone to take everything at the face value with wide open eyes. Sorry, this ain't AC forum where die hard fans clap their hands.

I have nothing against AC, I like the sim very much, but I have problem with people like you. No substance, big claims, know it all attitude but when someone questions your 'wisdom' you try to change the subject.

For the record, I don't believe any of the consumer sims is used by big players to develop their cars, or even work on the setups. I think consumer sims are used at most as training tools by drivers, even some high profile drivers.

I like all the major sims, I think all are quite good and enjoyable, but neither is perfect. It's irrelevant but my personal favorite is currently R3E. Mind you I said favorite, not THE BEST

I hope this explains it. If you had some balls you'd just say that it was your personal opinion and you have nothing to support it (which clearly you don't). Case closed, but no, you decide to dig deeper

BTW, here is something for you, play it loud

Ami_M3 said:

Another poor attempt from you to direct attention elsewhere, while avoiding the question I asked at the beginning of this banter.

Seriously, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT THIS UP, and this is not your first time either. Look in the mirror. People like you are big part of the reason I don't take everything at the face value. It's not me being rude towards IER. Looking at their website I see a team of five modders that we know from RD. I can either take mclarenf1pappa word for everything he says, or continue being sceptical. I choose the latter based on what I see. At this point I'd rather see something more tangible, but it's their choice (which I respect) not to share it.
I see IER as service provider, basing their simulator on AC. It doesn't support your ridiculous claim the slightest.
I think mclarenf1pappa tried to back you up, with good intentions, because maybe he knows you. He is not the reason we have this conversation, he just got caught up in the middle of it.

You on the other hand pretend to know it all, haunt rF2 threads bringing your 'wisdom' how 'nobody serious' uses that sim and expect everyone to take everything at the face value with wide open eyes. Sorry, this ain't AC forum where die hard fans clap their hands.

I have nothing against AC, I like the sim very much, but I have problem with people like you. No substance, big claims, know it all attitude but when someone questions your 'wisdom' you try to change the subject.

For the record, I don't believe any of the consumer sims is used by big players to develop their cars, or even work on the setups. I think consumer sims are used at most as training tools by drivers, even some high profile drivers.

I like all the major sims, I think all are quite good and enjoyable, but neither is perfect. It's irrelevant but my personal favorite is currently R3E. Mind you I said favorite, not THE BEST

I hope this explains it. If you had some balls you'd just say that it was your personal opinion and you have nothing to support it (which clearly you don't). Case closed, but no, you decide to dig deeper

Click to expand...

Look, these kind of posts just out you as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. I have to say this or bystanders will get the wrong idea.

I don't want to start listing client names or engineer names because I'm not particularly friends with any of them and I don't know if they would appreciate it. Furthermore, I am not even formally part of the industry. I mentioned Jackson because he posted first.

Obviously anything anyone says about this kind of thing is opinion; there is no up-to-date comprehensive list of who uses what. Nobody knows for sure. You can just make a damn good bet.

Rather you should gauge the validity of the arguments to decide for yourself if those opinions make sense. You are of the opinion that nobody uses consumer sims; and my answer is that almost nobody has enough money to run a serious custom sim program. Hence almost everyone uses either a laptime sim, or a consumer sim if they want driver in the loop. Most of those driver in the loop sims are AC and rF1, how much exactly is the split is hard to say but I am sure there is a lot of both. It used to be clearly rF1 dominant.

Wow, talk about beating a dead horse. Anyone have any opinions on the M4 GT3 coming to rFactor 2? Anyone know which of the new content you are going to drive first? I think I will start with the indycar.