Assetto Corsa Competizione v1.8.10 Hotfix Released

Kurupt CDN said:

View attachment 533747
id assume something like this

Click to expand...

Can you see the woman in the red dress

wolftree said:

But I've been told only Kunos have the Super Sekrit Manufacturer Data that no other sim dev have so ACC has to be the most realistic sim and there's no denying that... until the next major update when suddenly the cars drive completely differently.

Click to expand...

They do have data from privateers. Not sure if saying names is polite, but I am aware of who some of them are. I'm not too sure if the other GT3 sims got the same data.

Manufacturers do provide some things sometimes but like I said, the aeromap is probably extremely obfuscated if they even got any. They do sometimes provide genuinely useful things like manuals with schematics and measurements. Sometimes you can get completely useless and undrivable Pacejka tire data just so you can claim you have tire data.

In my experience if a sim doesn't change very much after it got released early then the devs built inaccurate cars and left them there. ACC and AMS2 get a lot of flak for constant updates to the models (So do I ) but I think I prefer it to something like the AC approach where you build an inaccurate car then pretend it's not and just never update it and everyone thinks you're super good at physics.

Eventually the updates should slow down for ACC but it might still take several years, and it's not because the cars will be fully accurate, it's just because they hit a data wall. It'll take a decade to make everything in ACC accurate in a best case scenario. AMS2 will never get to the point where it would be okay to stop updating the cars because they're all accurate now, there's just too many.

Can't confirm these figures unfortunately, so I've deleted them.

Kyuubeey said:

In my experience if a sim doesn't change very much after it got released early then the devs built inaccurate cars and left them there. ACC and AMS2 get a lot of flak for constant updates to the models (So do I ) but I think I prefer it to something like the AC approach where you build an inaccurate car then pretend it's not and just never update it and everyone thinks you're super good at physics.

Click to expand...

I have no objection to sim devs improving their car and tyre models. Both ACC and AMS2 have improved a lot in the last 18 months, and that is to be commended. What I find silly is the obvious marketing hype about all the great features that already exist in most other sims or GT3 drivers who swear it's the most realistic thing ever while making claims about how GT3 cars drive that are flat out contradictory to basic vehicle dynamics.

wolftree said:

I have no objection to sim devs improving their car and tyre models. Both ACC and AMS2 have improved a lot in the last 18 months, and that is to be commended. What I find silly is the obvious marketing hype about all the great features that already exist in most other sims or GT3 drivers who swear it's the most realistic thing ever while making claims about how GT3 cars drive that are flat out contradictory to basic vehicle dynamics.

Click to expand...

I dunno, I've driven an actually accurate GT3 model and it wasn't super off from the ACC one. It was before 1.8, though. I don't know how 1.8 stacks up. The marketing stuff is super embarassing and drivers say strange things often but it's not entirely unfounded.

The ACC version snapped like a mofo above the limit though, but that can also just be due to the exaggerated marbles in that version. The general handling in the linear region of slip and near lateral peak wasn't very different though. It's not exactly the same in combined grip transients and I don't expect it to because the engineers and data level are different, but it's a step up from most sims that don't drive anything like reasonable models in steady state.

There are still some bad params in the tires and I'm sure they don't have the aero figured out either (sensitivity is relatively high on GT cars, like 1% per 1mm at least and not linear IIRC) so it's not like ACC is perfect, but all the other sims are kind of just doing whatever while ACC does at least drive like the serious model up to and near slip peak.

The M4 was overpowered?? F**k, i am like 6 seconds slower from what I see others drivers lapping on youtube... how is going to be now? 12secs?

Kyuubeey said:

They do have data from privateers. Not sure if saying names is polite, but I am aware of who some of them are. I'm not too sure if the other GT3 sims got the same data.

Manufacturers do provide some things sometimes but like I said, the aeromap is probably extremely obfuscated if they even got any. They do sometimes provide genuinely useful things like manuals with schematics and measurements. Sometimes you can get completely useless and undrivable Pacejka tire data just so you can claim you have tire data.

In my experience if a sim doesn't change very much after it got released early then the devs built inaccurate cars and left them there. ACC and AMS2 get a lot of flak for constant updates to the models (So do I ) but I think I prefer it to something like the AC approach where you build an inaccurate car then pretend it's not and just never update it and everyone thinks you're super good at physics.

Eventually the updates should slow down for ACC but it might still take several years, and it's not because the cars will be fully accurate, it's just because they hit a data wall. It'll take a decade to make everything in ACC accurate in a best case scenario. AMS2 will never get to the point where it would be okay to stop updating the cars because they're all accurate now, there's just too many.

Click to expand...

Most cars in any sim are not made with all the physics data directly from the factory, most of it is incompatible with how it works in a sim anyway. So a spec sheet with most important data is provided.
With a bit of luck there is some motecdata available to calibrate the final car.
Sometimes the manufacturer provides a 3d model. But these high Res files are also just used as a reference.
iRacing scans and measures most of their cars. So their appearance should be quite good, but you can't scan physics

Don't expect to much of how accurate these cars are in the data department, but how they drive in the end can be still very accurate.

RichardHessels said:

Most cars in any sim are not made with all the physics data directly from the factory, most of it is incompatible with how it works in a sim anyway. So a spec sheet with most important data is provided.
With a bit of luck there is some motecdata available to calibrate the final car.
Sometimes the manufacturer provides a 3d model. But these high Res files are also just used as a reference.
iRacing scans and measures most of their cars. So their appearance should be quite good, but you can't scan physics

Don't expect to much of how accurate these cars are in the data department, but how they drive in the end can be still very accurate.

Click to expand...

It varies, but generally yeah, the cars in consumer sims are not "100% accurate, the manufacturer gave data so it must be". Most of the time in my understanding, the manufacturer does not actually have comprehensive tire data that would be reliable to use in a sim, and the tire is the absolutely most important part.

They can provide pretty good manuals though, so hopefully at least the kinematics are not terrible. Sometimes they are terrible; just look at AC's roadcars. Hell, they used my dampers for the R34 GT-R, that's what the bar is sometimes.

However there are caveats to that too; the spec sheet rarely lists the dynamic roll stiffnesses which can be easily 50% softer or more for some cars; they just list the springs and perhaps wheelrates if you are very lucky.
The real stiffnesses are unknown and must be correlated, which might range from "difficult" to "impossible" depending what kind of support you have, if they even give you log files to begin with. I don't know if it is just the rendering or what, but iR's new F1 car appears very stiff compared to what it should be; a sign of not correlating the real roll stiffnesses despite supposedly getting logs from Mercedes. For all we know they were missing suspension travel channels.

TurboT said:

" - VR: TAA5 area mask optimization in stereo rendering now defaults off to remove artefacting."

Artefacting is fixed for the biggest part at least. But it's unusable since it causes an ~25% performance drop.

ACC is close to unplayable in VR since the 1.8 update at acceptable resolution/90hz, even with the 3090.

Click to expand...

O, so instead of optimizing so more people can enjoy this tittle in VR , they made it worse??
And then now they even wanna loose the ppl who were playing it on a 3090 ? Unbelievable...

ACC has been sitting on my shelf for over 2 years now ollecting dust. I try it from time to time after an update , each time hoping finally they optimized the VR implementation enough to give a same level experience to come on par with AC, PC2 or AMS2. But they don't seem to care about VR customers ... (I guess as long as we bought the game that's enough for them)...
I have a rig with "only" a 3070 and can play AC and AMS2 perfectly , but ACC is unplayable still indeed (this after the game being released almost 3 years ago)
I guess this will be a title to play in a year or 2 when we all have a 40x0ti's or something.

edwinjacobs said:

O, so instead of optimizing so more people can enjoy this tittle in VR , they made it worse??
And then now they even wanna loose the ppl who were playing it on a 3090 ? Unbelievable...

ACC has been sitting on my shelf for over 2 years now ollecting dust. I try it from time to time after an update , each time hoping finally they optimized the VR implementation enough to give a same level experience to come on par with AC, PC2 or AMS2. But they don't seem to care about VR customers ... (I guess as long as we bought the game that's enough for them)...
I have a rig with "only" a 3070 and can play AC and AMS2 perfectly , but ACC is unplayable still indeed (this after the game being released almost 3 years ago)
I guess this will be a title to play in a year or 2 when we all have a 40x0ti's or something.

Click to expand...

Why so, I play with a 3080.fine. no idea what FPS I get mind.
What's wrong?

edwinjacobs said:

O, so instead of optimizing so more people can enjoy this tittle in VR , they made it worse??
And then now they even wanna loose the ppl who were playing it on a 3090 ? Unbelievable...

ACC has been sitting on my shelf for over 2 years now ollecting dust. I try it from time to time after an update , each time hoping finally they optimized the VR implementation enough to give a same level experience to come on par with AC, PC2 or AMS2. But they don't seem to care about VR customers ... (I guess as long as we bought the game that's enough for them)...
I have a rig with "only" a 3070 and can play AC and AMS2 perfectly , but ACC is unplayable still indeed (this after the game being released almost 3 years ago)
I guess this will be a title to play in a year or 2 when we all have a 40x0ti's or something.

Click to expand...

Have you thought that maybe they have achieved the best they can given the limits of the game engine and will continue optimisation as and when technology becomes available?
I'm sure that's what you would do? I somehow doubt they have had meetings and as a result decided "hey lets un-optimise VR so fewer people will buy it".

Also I run VR on a 1080 and it's a little rough round the edges but perfectly usable for me, I wouldn't call it good but it is tolerable and better than 2D, you just have to give up on FPS counting.

Hopefully they fixed the blinking 720s headlight in the menus

Assetto Corsa Competizione Extreme Toe Edition

TurboT said:

" - VR: TAA5 area mask optimization in stereo rendering now defaults off to remove artefacting."

Artefacting is fixed for the biggest part at least. But it's unusable since it causes an ~25% performance drop.

ACC is close to unplayable in VR since the 1.8 update at acceptable resolution/90hz, even with the 3090.

Click to expand...

I just had a 3080 arrive this week and was really excited to see difference from my 1080 and it looks good although i cant get the clarity / frame rate of AMS2, which is fantastic in VR.

Its a real shame it still doesnt shine as bright as other titles in VR, especially after dropping £1300 on a gpu.

Guessing a 4080 will fix it though...

Shame Kunos chose panel over VR for ACC.

F2020 said:

i cant get the clarity / frame rate of AMS2, which is fantastic in VR.

Click to expand...

you can blame unreal 4 for that. even on the normal screen its not as clean and sharp as AMS2, AC or iRacing.
however, it has come a long way.
it was such a blurry mess in v. 1.0

Looks like another hotfix coming up...

wolftree said:

Looks like another hotfix coming up...

Click to expand...

Simracers learning about setup eggs that are done IRL too is pretty funny. Toe-out on both axles is an IRL exploit too albeit with a caveat. Although so much rear toe-out isn't exactly common for RWD cars so there's probably something funny going on anyway. The principle isn't wrong though. I've seen some racecar manuals that actually spec-in some toe-out on the rear with specific tires.

The caveat is that the exaggerated amount of toe is likely because there's no wheel compliance, so IRL -0.20 toe per wheel would be more like -0.40 mid-corner, and also ACC's wear and heating model isn't exactly perfect so it doesn't punish you as much wear and heat wise as it should. I think you would get crazy mid-corner and turn-in toe values and it'd end up being too unstable in a model with elastokinematics.

F2020 said:

I just had a 3080 arrive this week and was really excited to see difference from my 1080 and it looks good although i cant get the clarity / frame rate of AMS2, which is fantastic in VR.

Its a real shame it still doesnt shine as bright as other titles in VR, especially after dropping £1300 on a gpu.

Guessing a 4080 will fix it though...

Shame Kunos chose panel over VR for ACC.

Click to expand...

AMS2 is indeed VR king. It's insane how it looks with the 3080 indeed (I even upgraded from the 3080 to the TI, which makes ~10%-15% difference in AMS2, quite a lot/more then expected..). Really amazing how sim racing looks since 2021, all thanks to Reiza.

th3orist said:

you can blame unreal 4 for that. even on the normal screen its not as clean and sharp as AMS2, AC or iRacing.
however, it has come a long way.
it was such a blurry mess in v. 1.0

Click to expand...

And who chose for unreal 4? Right Kunos did, so F2020 is right, they chose panel over VR for ACC. They could have decided in the start to chose an other engine that was more fit for VR users but they chose not to.

It was better in 1.7, they really messed VR up with the 1.8 update. 1.7 had around ~15% more fps which was quite a lot. Maybe 1.0 was even less, I don't know about that, but the 1.8 update was really a HUGE step backwards for VR.

Edit: VR is growing quite fast now, this is the latest news: https://www.npd.com/news/press-rele...ssories-sales-see-strong-holiday-performance/

So let's hope that they will decide something better with AC2 otherwise the future of this title is completely ruined. Last poll on RD was already ~40% VR usage under hardcore sim racers.. and it's growing rapidly. In the expected release date of 2024 most users will have VR for sure and it's now already almost half of the hardcore simmers.

Since the Varjo Aero VR made also an extreme jump in clarity which even convinced guys like boosted media to switch over (he has an insanely expensive triple screen setup and was really dedicated to triples but even in his opinion VR is better now, only since the Varjo (EXCEPT with ACC)). After this Varjo headset the innovation continues, the future will be VR for sure. So I hope Kunos is reading this and starts thinking wisely with this new title...

TurboT said:

AMS2 is indeed VR king. It's insane how it looks with the 3080 indeed (I even upgraded from the 3080 to the TI, which makes ~10%-15% difference in AMS2, quite a lot/more then expected..). Really amazing how sim racing looks since 2021, all thanks to Reiza.

And who chose for unreal 4? Right Kunos did, so F2020 is right, they chose panel over VR for ACC. They could have decided in the start to chose an other engine that was more fit for VR users but they chose not to.

It was better in 1.7, they really messed VR up with the 1.8 update. 1.7 had around ~15% more fps which was quite a lot. Maybe 1.0 was even less, I don't know about that, but the 1.8 update was really a HUGE step backwards for VR.

Edit: VR is growing quite fast now, this is the latest news: https://www.npd.com/news/press-rele...ssories-sales-see-strong-holiday-performance/

So let's hope that they will decide something better with AC2 otherwise the future of this title is completely ruined. Last poll on RD was already ~40% VR usage under hardcore sim racers.. and it's growing rapidly. In the expected release date of 2024 most users will have VR for sure and it's now already almost half of the hardcore simmers.

Since the Varjo Aero VR made also an extreme jump in clarity which even convinced guys like boosted media to switch over (he has an insanely expensive triple screen setup and was really dedicated to triples but even in his opinion VR is better now, only since the Varjo (EXCEPT with ACC)). After this Varjo headset the innovation continues, the future will be VR for sure. So I hope Kunos is reading this and starts thinking wisely with this new title...

Click to expand...

Kunos is gonna focus on a 2,000 Euro peripheral? The Aero may be a huge step forward in the technical side of VR, but it's cost will rule out all but the tiniest fraction of an already small slice of the market. Add to that the Varjo website seems to cater soley to flight sims, it might be difficult to get them to iron out any kinks between their products and our racing sims.

davehenrie said:

Kunos is gonna focus on a 2,000 Euro peripheral? The Aero may be a huge step forward in the technical side of VR, but it's cost will rule out all but the tiniest fraction of an already small slice of the market. Add to that the Varjo website seems to cater soley to flight sims, it might be difficult to get them to iron out any kinks between their products and our racing sims.

Click to expand...

Huh? Do you really think that a headset like the Varjo Aero will still be 2000 euro in 2024???

Don't you think that the competition will jump in and that headsets like that will be available for the masses around that time?

I cannot fully predict the future, but I can predict that Varjo Aero is just the start of this new clarity in VR and that all future headsets will be better/improve and that they way to move forward in sim racing is VR.

That's a sure thing. And I can also predict that when Valve/HP etc. and all other brands make new headsets, that they will be better then the previous one's in terms of resolution, lenses, clarity, brightness, colors, black levels etc.etc. Of course they will not stop innovating. Why do you think that the world stops here and that VR will be stuck on Varjo Aero's (price)level and stop innovating? There is zero reason for this weird assumption.

The end of 2024 is almost 3 years away, if they release a new sim then; VR headsets will be even more mainstream then it is now already and THEN Varjo Aero's clarity that is special today, we will be default/affordable for everyone probably.

So YES of course they should focus on such a peripheral as a REFERENCE now (but of course they should make AC2 compatible with ALL VR headsets, just to be clear.. that I don't mean "focus on one headset", I mean "focus on what the future of VR brings to sim racing"), because it is what the future around 2024 is for the biggest portion of the sim racing market. I don't even understand why you put a question mark there, it's not difficult to predict that. It would be a HUGE mistake if Kunos doesn't see this too.