Have Your Say - What is Your SECOND Favourite GT3 Racing Sim

Second Best GT3 Sim 01.jpg
GT3 continues to be a favourite class among sim racers even outside of ACC, and we want to hear what your other go-to GT3 racing sim is.

Assetto Corsa Competizione has a huge roster of GT3 and GT4 cars, officially licensed by SRO. Its unwavering dedication to recreating the experience of driving a modern GT car has created arguably the most accurate recreation of a race series in gaming. Assuming this is the benchmark for you for GT3 racing (and please feel free to express an opinion otherwise in the comments below), what do you think is the second best way to experience GT3 racing in sims?

Continuing our weekly series where your responses in the comments below are the real story, we want to know where else you race GT3 cars, and why. Below are just some possibilities, but please let us know your own preference in the comments.
  • RaceRoom Racing Experience - RaceRoom's huge GT3 roster, known in game as GTR3, spans several years and includes some rarities from the world of GT3. Sector 3 has continued to add to the class in R3E, and newer versions of cars from Audi and Porsche are now present. The hugely customizable race setup allows multi-class racing, but sadly no night or wet weather.
  • rFactor 2 - On the eve of the release of the BMW M4 GT3, rFactor 2 offers players a growing roster of cars and licensed tracks to drive on. The recently updated UI allows us to get racing faster and easier than ever. The force feedback and car physics in rF2 are among the best in any sim, but adding the GT3 cars to your collection is very costly.
  • iRacing - The king of online racing could perhaps be the most pure way to enjoy GT3 racing from the comfort of your home. The car roster is not huge, but what is on offer in iRacing is nicely recreated. Obviously a monthly subscription is required to use the GT3 cars, but then you can compete against other and grow your virtual career as a GT3 driver.
These are just some of the ways to enjoy GT3. So whether its any of these or a different sim altogether, let us know your favourite ACC alternative in the comments below.
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: That_random_racer, F2020, LW_Black4 and 4 others
About author
Mike Smith
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

More in Misc

Comments

guidofoc
I started driving GT3 cars because of ACC and they are a blast to drive and race in, so who knows they may be better in other sims but honestly I don't feel compelled to try.
 
LW_Black4
mod-edit: please real our terms of service with regards to rips and illegal content
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Kyuubeey said:
Hard to call it mixed class when Guerilla are just KS GT3 physics rips with minor changes. Not that the GT3 cars that come with AC are even a little bit accurate to begin with either.
Click to expand...

Why you say so? Are the ACC ones accurate?

I saw mclarenpapa saying damper simulation in rF2 is limited. Do you know anything about that? Compared to ACC the suspension feel a bit missing for sure. Some elements of bigger compressions on the suspensions aren't quite present to onboards I see.

Sorry if I say something stupid, I just want to learn as I was inticed by that blocked thread.

ACC has some weird slide behavior at time to me...
 
Kyuubeey
BloodSinking said:
Why you say so? Are the ACC ones accurate?

I saw mclarenpapa saying damper simulation in rF2 is limited. Do you know anything about that? Compared to ACC the suspension feel a bit missing for sure. Some elements of bigger compressions on the suspensions aren't quite present to onboards I see.

Sorry if I say something stupid, I just want to learn as I was inticed by that blocked thread.

ACC has some weird slide behavior at time to me...
Click to expand...
AC ones just don't match to any data I've seen nor any design conventions I know of. Mostly talking about the R8 and Porsches though, I don't know very much about other GT cars/haven't looked at specific data to compare. I don't think the rest is much better in AC tbh. None of them are setup at all reasonably nor can you usually even dial in a correct setup with the options.

EDIT: Btw this is not unique to AC at all.

ACC is...better? I'm not in the position to say how accurate they are because I don't have full access to the parameters nor to the real cars' parameters. ACC R8 at least drives closer to an actual model. Not that I've driven the physical car itself.

There were/maybe still are some 100% absolutely for sure objectively wrong tire parameters in ACC still, so I am going to assume some fudging is going on.

rF2, like rF1, vanilla AC and literally all of the other sims to my knowledge, is limited in dampers/bumpstops/cornersprings/heavesprings/ARBs because they don't allow precise enough curve inputs for them. If any at all, usually it's a single static value. Cphys adds motion ratio tables, bumpstop and damper force tables etc. for more varied behavior and setup possibilities.

TCS is also not as realistic in any sim compared to AC with Cphys, which is kind of a problem if you're making GT3 cars. Like, a big problem.

Also good luck matching any maps with how aero is in ISImotor. I somehow remembered it using aeromap tables but it just has pretty simplistic and inadequate options when I checked recently. Although the aeromaps in all sims' content are probably way off tbh. Stuff ain't linear at all for one.
 
Last edited:
B
Kyuubeey said:
AC ones just don't match to any data I've seen nor any design conventions I know of. Mostly talking about the R8 and Porsches though, I don't know very much about other GT cars/haven't looked at specific data to compare. I don't think the rest is much better in AC tbh. None of them are setup at all reasonably nor can you usually even dial in a correct setup with the options.

EDIT: Btw this is not unique to AC at all.

ACC is...better? I'm not in the position to say how accurate they are because I don't have full access to the parameters nor to the real cars' parameters. ACC R8 at least drives closer to an actual model. Not that I've driven the physical car itself.

There were/maybe still are some 100% absolutely for sure objectively wrong tire parameters in ACC still, so I am going to assume some fudging is going on.

rF2, like rF1, vanilla AC and literally all of the other sims to my knowledge, is limited in dampers/bumpstops/cornersprings/heavesprings/ARBs because they don't allow precise enough curve inputs for them. If any at all, usually it's a single static value. Cphys adds motion ratio tables, bumpstop and damper force tables etc. for more varied behavior and setup possibilities.

TCS is also not as realistic in any sim compared to AC with Cphys, which is kind of a problem if you're making GT3 cars. Like, a big problem.

Also good luck matching any maps with how aero is in ISImotor. I somehow remembered it using aeromap tables but it just has pretty simplistic and inadequate options when I checked recently. Although the aeromaps in all sims' content are probably way off tbh. Stuff ain't linear at all for one.
Click to expand...

Cphys is the CSP extensions from mclanrenpapa right? He made an absolute mad work! I wonder how much he will do with it.

Cphys also has more parameters for aerodynamics I think, right? Do you know wich cars take advantage of them all in AC?

I was driving some AC and I quite enjoy some cars and it feels refreshing after have played rF2 for so long now.

Correlating damper and suspension limitations to say AC vs RF2, mainly visually, do you think something glaringly obvious happens? In AC/ACC I think when cars suspensions get compressed enough they seem to have a whole dimension that RF2 seems to be missing. Sounds help with that, but in rF2 it feels a bit too soft/smooth, not quite disturbing the car plataform enough? I don't know, might be down to the mod and S397 feel all a bit more like this in the suspensions, lacking a dimension, for lack of better words.

Cherrs and thanks.
 
Kyuubeey
BloodSinking said:
Cphys is the CSP extensions from mclanrenpapa right? He made an absolute mad work! I wonder how much he will do with it.

Cphys also has more parameters for aerodynamics I think, right? Do you know wich cars take advantage of them all in AC?

I was driving some AC and I quite enjoy some cars and it feels refreshing after have played rF2 for so long now.

Correlating damper and suspension limitations to say AC vs RF2, mainly visually, do you think something glaringly obvious happens? In AC/ACC I think when cars suspensions get compressed enough they seem to have a whole dimension that RF2 seems to be missing. Sounds help with that, but in rF2 it feels a bit too soft/smooth, not quite disturbing the car plataform enough? I don't know, might be down to the mod and S397 feel all a bit more like this in the suspensions, lacking a dimension, for lack of better words.

Cherrs and thanks.
Click to expand...
Cphys has aeromaps. There is some added functionality like roll sensitivity but it's mostly just to better match real data, because it's more similar to how it's represented anyway. There's nothing *inherently* wrong with AC or ISImotor aero although IMO from what I've seen you can do more complex and correct sensitivities with AC's WINGS system. If ISImotor does have maps and I just missed them, someone can correct me.

Hard to comment on the damper thing, but there is likely an issue with some tire rendering stuff in AC (and ACC?) which will make big compressions like kerbs less accurate. I wouldn't say rF2 is more wrong just because the car might be more behaved.

ISImotor has an advantage over vanilla AC in that it can produce some progressive behavior with the bumpstops, but it's not necessarily quite correct like just inputting the correct deflection / force graph would be. One reason you wanna use realistic bumpstops is so that the car is less disturbed over large compressions and the wheel deflects less due to the stiffness, as opposed to bottoming out more. Vanilla AC has progressive bumpstops and springs support as well although the formula is bad and it's a bit broken, which Cphys does fix.

Vanilla AC and ISImotor both have the same damper issue ie: one knee, two slopes. Cphys allows you to input a graph. It's not necessarily always a problem but many dampers have highly nonlinear behavior so it's a benefit to be able to do it. I think blow-off support is coming in the future, if it's not included already.
 
G
"Below are just some possibilities, but please let us know your own preference in the comments."

I guess that AMS2 is not in that list, because AMS2 is nr.1? ;)

The second best is ACC for me. This since the lack of proper VR support, if the VR support was of the same standards as AMS2 then it would probably share the nr1 position together with ACC.

If rf2 didn't have so much bugs AND if all the content was equal in terms of quality, then it could have shared the nr.2 position with ACC. But rf2 is simply to bugged/unplayable because of this and many content is so outdated so it's not worth it anymore(RF2 does keep dropping frames in VR with the G2, RF2's AI doesn't work, there is NO surround 5.1 support, and this in 2022 for a racing game, some cars are great other cars are just from a stoneage etc.etc.)... iRacing is just to expensive for what it is in 2022(lacks proper visuals) and raceroom is outdated for me too, when both are updated to 2022 visual standards then they could be great too.
 
A
Premium
Raceroom GT3 is way too simplistic and easy to drive. rF2 is best, iRacing is somewhere between
 
B
Kyuubeey said:
Cphys has aeromaps. There is some added functionality like roll sensitivity but it's mostly just to better match real data, because it's more similar to how it's represented anyway. There's nothing *inherently* wrong with AC or ISImotor aero although IMO from what I've seen you can do more complex and correct sensitivities with AC's WINGS system. If ISImotor does have maps and I just missed them, someone can correct me.

Hard to comment on the damper thing, but there is likely an issue with some tire rendering stuff in AC (and ACC?) which will make big compressions like kerbs less accurate. I wouldn't say rF2 is more wrong just because the car might be more behaved.

ISImotor has an advantage over vanilla AC in that it can produce some progressive behavior with the bumpstops, but it's not necessarily quite correct like just inputting the correct deflection / force graph would be. One reason you wanna use realistic bumpstops is so that the car is less disturbed over large compressions and the wheel deflects less due to the stiffness, as opposed to bottoming out more. Vanilla AC has progressive bumpstops and springs support as well although the formula is bad and it's a bit broken, which Cphys does fix.

Vanilla AC and ISImotor both have the same damper issue ie: one knee, two slopes. Cphys allows you to input a graph. It's not necessarily always a problem but many dampers have highly nonlinear behavior so it's a benefit to be able to do it. I think blow-off support is coming in the future, if it's not included already.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. Some things I don't know enough about to go into detail with you.

I don't know what it is, but when rF2 has a car that at least doesn't suffer from the issues with the sliding and slip angle I can't find other sim with better FFB and all. It's a shame we can't have a propper developer behind it, as with some modernizations I believe this engine is unbeatable, although it can be hard to work with this tire model I guess.

Thanks again.
 
BoBaHK
AMS2 is #2, since AC1 is number #1 - the best graphics in VR (after a lot of tuning) and unmatched amount of community-generated content. ACC is not on the list.. because it is unplayable in VR atm :(
 
Kenny Paton
Staff
Premium
I think there's been enough lectures on the physics on the discussion, for or against. Safe to say there's never going to be an agreement on that.
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Mike Smith
Article read time
2 min read
Views
20,121
Comments
138
Last update

Share this article

What's needed for simracing in 2024?

  • More games, period

  • Better graphics/visuals

  • Advanced physics and handling

  • More cars and tracks

  • AI improvements

  • AI engineering

  • Cross-platform play

  • New game Modes

  • Other, post your idea

Results are only viewable after voting.
See comments…
Back
Top