New Formula 1 car coming to Automobilista 2

BrunoBæ said:

And I think we have someone here who confuse sim(plified) physics with RL physics.
Because even the team intern sim(ulators) does only operate on a rather small spectrum of the extremely diverse physical laws that is functioning out in the real non(simplified) reality.
So good luck with your AC recreation of porpoising

Click to expand...

Someone has confused ideas between genuine and pre-baked (canned) physics...

Modern open wheelers aren't my cup of tea but it looks like it's interested a lot of people and ultimately that's good for AMS2.

We need more fixings and a better multiplayer environment if we wanna get success of Ams2, i hope they will come with this new update, and maybe this F1 2022 DLC could help to get more fans

Glad to see more open wheel content coming to various sims...there's been too much GT oversaturation in the market for far too long.

There are such misconceptions about modern open wheelers, especially the modern F1 machine...that they're on rails so they're the easiest car to drive, with another myth being that have ABS and TC...(TC only during V10 era, all the others don't) or that the computers do all the work for the driver (very ignorant and not even close). Yea they are on rails...if you drive like a Grandma on Sunday! The problem is that most people in simracing drive them through corners and brake like they're in a GT car...and because it does it much easier than said GT at those speeds, they think it's a cakewalk. F1 cars are stupidly easy to drive below their limits. Racing them in a competitive field is another matter.

Try pushing them to the limits and beyond on both braking (which tends to be deeper into the corner and faster than most other cars out there) and cornering to the limit of those "rails", where you're threading the needle between max grip and completely losing the back end. Do this to the point where your times are competitive, and then do that for 300km race distance while trying to avoid contact with other maniacs (as the car can't take banging about like GTs), with no time to really catch yourself during pitstops as they're 2 - 3 seconds long...all while managing engine modes and multiple differential adjustments to keep the car stable during tyre stints.

Go drive the W12 in iRacing, the Formula Hybrids in AC or many of the Formulas in AMS1 or AMS2 in the way described above and then come back and tell us how easy F1 cars are to race. Anyone who says they're easy hasn't gone fast enough in them yet

Snailer said:

Really? I find that difficult to believe, to be honest. It seems to me like something like a simple aeromap should make that possible. I think I might give recreating porpoising a go later in AC, now I'm curious.

Click to expand...

Ferrari openly said their simulation tools couldn't catch it.

Kingkoenig said:

True. But now that we know it is happening…

Click to expand...

Well... maybe there is some way you can target that behaviour, i don't know.
But out of just inputting data into a simulator they couldn't find out the car would start bouncing in certain speeds/ride heights.

Leonardo Chaves said:

Ferrari openly said their simulation tools couldn't catch it.

Click to expand...

Of course because simulators are only as good as the data you can collect or the level of details your physical models can grasp. There is no wind tunnel that goes to 250 kph which is apparently when the issue starts so there is no fist hand data on the car before bringing it to the track. Secondly aero is not simulated in simracing: aero maps are used which are nothing else than the above. Hence simulator could have never grasped the issue unless wind tunnel showed it or track experience was first collected on the car.
In hindsight they could have run specific CFDs to try and see under which conditions venturi channels starving could occur but I doubt they would do that routinely. They would have to be convinced porpoising was surely there and go searching for it, with the risk that they could still miss it if the CFD simulation wasn't right

MadDriver11 said:

Of course because simulators are only as good as the data you can collect or the level of details your physical models can grasp. There is no wind tunnel that goes to 250 kph which is apparently when the issue starts so there is no fist hand data on the car before bringing it to the track. Secondly aero is not simulated in simracing: aero maps are used which are nothing else than the above. Hence simulator could have never grasped the issue unless wind tunnel showed it or track experience was first collected on the car.
In hindsight they could have run specific CFDs to try and see under which conditions venturi channels starving could occur but I doubt they would do that routinely. They would have to be convinced porpoising was surely there and go searching for it, with the risk that they could still miss it if the CFD simulation wasn't right

Click to expand...

In a distant future precise and countable CFD simulations are implemented as real time in sims as per standard. Including precise vortex- and viscosity models of every thinkable weather condition, with each simmer running sims on a HexaFLOPS supercomputer on the size of a smartphone, just with less thermal emission.
By then ready for the next step of real time combined dynamic FEM/CFD modelling the flexible nature of porpoising.

Distant future, that is

stenovitz said:

In a distant future precise and countable CFD simulations are implemented as real time in sims as per standard. Including precise vortex- and viscosity models of every thinkable weather condition, with each simmer running sims on a HexaFLOPS supercomputer on the size of a smartphone, just with less thermal emission.
By then ready for the next step of real time combined dynamic FEM/CFD modelling the flexible nature of porpoising.

Distant future, that is

Click to expand...

By then still all we can find online is GT3s at Spa or Monza.

BP said:

Go drive the W12 in iRacing, the Formula Hybrids in AC or many of the Formulas in AMS1 or AMS2 in the way described above and then come back and tell us how easy F1 cars are to race. Anyone who says they're easy hasn't gone fast enough in them yet

Click to expand...

Hehe a slightly hostile way of stopping such easy driving nonsense would be to ask those smart guys to prove they are able to take such cars to the limit.
By taking a screen dump of how high up on the TT LB list they are positioned.
That would probably stop this nonsense

I'm not hyped anymore about screenshots released by Reiza since they teased additional Group C, GT1, GT3 And GT4 cars in December '21 that are still not released, or even mentioned to be released anytime.

Daniel Graf said:

Great news. I am sure Reiza will nail it.

Click to expand...

Based on what? No team is gonna share any details with them, if you mean nail the CAD then yeah, probably.

So I’m assuming F1 are allowing other developers to license current gen cars, rather than EA/Codemasters exclusivity. That’s bigger news. I’m assuming it will just be one team? Which will be a shame, given how nice some the cars look. But better than nothing. Get to work on those skins you talented modders!

Any teased on what's going on with their career mode?

BrunoBæ said:

And I think we have someone here who confuse sim(plified) physics with RL physics.

Click to expand...

What about what I said makes you think that is the case?

John B. Ellis said:

Ahem, hasn't every car offered for sale by ********************* already mastered the art of simulating porpoising?

Click to expand...

I don't remember experiencing porpoising. Then again, I don't drive RSS cars much.

Leonardo Chaves said:

Ferrari openly said their simulation tools couldn't catch it.

Well... maybe there is some way you can target that behaviour, i don't know.
But out of just inputting data into a simulator they couldn't find out the car would start bouncing in certain speeds/ride heights.

Click to expand...

Simulator, or simulations? Two very different things that people seem to be using interchangeably. This is a discussion about simulators, aka the thing where you drive a pretend racecar.

MadDriver11 said:

In hindsight they could have run specific CFDs to try and see under which conditions venturi channels starving could occur but I doubt they would do that routinely. They would have to be convinced porpoising was surely there and go searching for it, with the risk that they could still miss it if the CFD simulation wasn't right

Click to expand...

Don't they run CFD at different ride heights, specifically to obtain aero maps? Or do they do that in track testing? Stalling of aerodynamic devices in extreme ground effect is very common and easy to do, I'd expect they would, at the very least, have a CFD run for the lowest ride height the car can realistically experience on track (under normal circumstances).

Edit: Not sure how this happened, but apparently I managed to double-post. Sorry.

MadDriver11 said:

Of course because simulators are only as good as the data you can collect or the level of details your physical models can grasp. There is no wind tunnel that goes to 250 kph which is apparently when the issue starts so there is no fist hand data on the car before bringing it to the track. Secondly aero is not simulated in simracing: aero maps are used which are nothing else than the above. Hence simulator could have never grasped the issue unless wind tunnel showed it or track experience was first collected on the car.
In hindsight they could have run specific CFDs to try and see under which conditions venturi channels starving could occur but I doubt they would do that routinely. They would have to be convinced porpoising was surely there and go searching for it, with the risk that they could still miss it if the CFD simulation wasn't right

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they run CFD at all possible situations, wind tunnels yes there's some bogus rule about max speeds.
Even with this stall data(which would be essential to program into a simulator made not for fun but to help them setup the car) their sims couldn't predict it would cause the cars to bounce violently up and down and a lot of teams were caught by surprise, this actually happened, no one is making it up.

Harmoniser78 said:

So I’m assuming F1 are allowing other developers to license current gen cars, rather than EA/Codemasters exclusivity. That’s bigger news. I’m assuming it will just be one team? Which will be a shame, given how nice some the cars look. But better than nothing. Get to work on those skins you talented modders!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Teams always have the rights to their individual cars, the new Mercedes W13 is also gonna be in Iracing some time soon for example.
EA/Codemasters have the rights to reproduce the championship in it's entirety and all that it contains.

Remains to be seen if this is gonna be licensed car or a inspired one, most of their F1s have been inspirations.

Snailer said:

Don't they run CFD at different ride heights, specifically to obtain aero maps? Or do they do that in track testing? Stalling of aerodynamic devices in extreme ground effect is very common and easy to do, I'd expect they would, at the very least, have a CFD run for the lowest ride height the car can realistically experience on track (under normal circumstances).

Click to expand...

CFD is run in a number of sets of conditions. One thing of CFD you need to account though is that it is CFD only: it doesn't simulate mechanical sides of things. In other words CFD simulates mechanically static conditions not interactions with track undulations and oscillations related to the mechanical setup which are of essence in the porpoising effect.
Aero maps come from wind tunnel and track experience mostly as far as I know. Certainly CFD can give some hints before real data are acquired in certain cases but I wouldn't think you can straight forward use that for aero maps made of empirical points and mix everything up with CFD data to fill the gaps.

Bram Hengeveld said:

Lol, you literally have almost every piece of racing content under the sun already in AMS2. How can an extra car be too much?

Click to expand...

Some nice big laggy turbo tin tops would be nice, say some 4th gen group 5 cars would sit well in AMS2.

Mekonrider said:

Which ones do you find boring? All the retro/vintage open wheel stuff is entertaining imo.

Click to expand...

Daniel Graf said:

Great news. I am sure Reiza will nail it.

Click to expand...

F_B said:

Funny how some guys complain about more openwheel cars where the simracing world is dominated by GT3 cars since nearly 10 years. Especially online.

Click to expand...

maranello78 said:

We need more fixings and a better multiplayer environment if we wanna get success of Ams2, i hope they will come with this new update, and maybe this F1 2022 DLC could help to get more fans

Click to expand...

I fully agree with these comments! Great news from Reiza once again, but let's hope that the focus will also be on improving multiplayer in every possible way.

MadDriver11 said:

CFD is run in a number of sets of conditions. One thing of CFD you need to account though is that it is CFD only: it doesn't simulate mechanical sides of things. In other words CFD simulates mechanically static conditions not interactions with track undulations and oscillations related to the mechanical setup which are of essence in the porpoising effect.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But isn't the essence of poirpoising sudden loss of downforce caused by choking of the airflow, rather than undulations and oscillations in the mechanical setup? After all, the loss of downforce caused by choking of the airflow can occur in static conditions as well. Of course without oscillations/undulations the car could simply reach an equilibrium state, but I think most everyone would take those into account.

Just to clarify what I mean. CFD can show you the sudden loss of downforce as an aerodynamic element gets closer to the ground (picture). You don't need to simulate the track or the mechanical setup of the car, as it's clear how the car will react once sudden loss of downforce occurs (roughly 0-0.1 h/c in the picture).



Surely, armed with data like this, the teams would be able to calculate the deflection of the suspension to determine whether the car enters the 'danger zone'? At which point, it should be pretty easy to determine whether or not a car is in danger of porpoising. Of course unless what you mean is that the undulations of the track is what can push the car over the edge of the 'danger zone', whereas a calculation assuming a perfectly smooth surface would show the car to be in the clear.