Paul Jeffrey

Premium
ACC Blog Post 3.jpg

Aris has been at it again, revealing his third Assetto Corsa Competizione blog post - this time looking at the world of aerodynamics in ACC...


Informative blog post number 3 has been released! @Aristotelis has been at it again, finding some spare time to put down in writing more information about the inner workings of the upcoming Assetto Corsa Competizione racing simulation from Kunos Simulazioni.

In this latest post, Aris speaks in detail about the aerodynamics featured in ACC, and how they work and what effect they might have on the player when loading up the soon to be released new title.

If you missed them earlier, Aris has also posted about physics and tyres from the new title, informative reads and well worth a look as we kill time prior to the big release...

You can read the full blog post below:

Wings? Where we going we don't need any wings...
In original AC we could simulate as many wings a we wanted. So you wanted to simulate the body aerodynamics? Put a wing and apply proper values. You had a splitter? Add a wing with different values. Rear spoiler? Add a wing. Diffuser? Vertical fins? Side boards? Buffets. Add a wing. Each wing could have a specific area, lift coefficients, drag coefficients, sensitivity to ride height, yaw sensitivity… even active telemetry inputs that could modify the angle in real time and simulate all those active wings moving around… pretty impressive stuff, many industry firsts and so on. We were quite proud of the aero system in AC…

Great, scratch that and let’s build something completely new.

The aerodynamic model for ACC is completely rewritten from Stefano and Fernando. It doesn’t use an unlimited amount of wings anymore, but takes aeromap data from wind tunnels or CFD and uses them in way that everything in the car body, influences everything.

Ok let’s take a step back and analyze what is happening in real life and why such a development was needed. In real life an object, a racing car in our case, travels through air which is a fluid. Flow and turbulence is created and the shape, size and speed of them is relative to the shape of the object. Now comes the “obvious” but interesting part, a change in the shape of the object, changes the flow and the turbulence. A racing car is a big object and features on the body of the car, change the flow and create turbulences that affect a different feature in a different place of the body. A different front splitter, will not only change the aerodynamic characteristics on the front of the car but will also change the flow at the rear wing and rear diffuser, changing the aerodynamic forces of those features. A diffuser of a different shape or working in a different angle, will also change the flow behind of the rear wing and so the air approaching it, again changing the forces of the wing. A different rear wing shape or angle, can create pressures that change the flow from the front of the car, actively modifying the forces at the front.

Nothing of the above would be possible to simulate with the old system, at least not without some nasty workarounds and side effects that could be taken advantage by players in order to produce unrealistic end results.

The new aerodynamic modelling does exactly what we need. The rear wing can affect the front downforce, the front splitter can affect the rear wing and diffuser, but most importantly the ride heights now become the most important part of car setup. Modern cars that generate big amounts of downforce by the use of splitter and diffusers, are very, let me repeat that, VERY ride height and pitch sensitive.

The difference between front and rear ride height is of massive importance. Changing the front e rear ride height, moves forwards or backwards the aerodynamic pressure point, or to say it in a more simple way, how much of downforce goes to the front or to the rear of the car. Why is this so important? 1mm of ride height change at the front, can move the aerodynamic balance forward or backwards by 0.5% to over 2% depending on the car and rear wing setting. Let me say that again. 1mm of ride height, equals up and over to 2% of aero balance shift. You think it’s not much? 10mm can mean way over 20% aero shift. Good drivers will easily understand changes of 1%. Average drivers might not, but they will have big instability problems with a change of over 5%. Remember, these cars generate way above 500kg of downforce at medium speeds, so that’s a lot of force shifting around.

Furthermore we are talking about static balance. While driving, the car also pitch and rolls. Lifting off from the accelerator at a high speed turn or braking hard while turning in, can have catastrophic results in car stability if the aero “platform” is not setup properly.

It’s not over yet. With speed, the pressure created in front and under the front splitter might change the flow to the rear diffuser or make the front splitter more efficient, thus moving the aero shift even more forwards. This means the car might change balance going faster.
It is clear that splitters and diffuser are very sensitive to ride height. Finding the correct ride height and trying to maintain it in a acceptable range under all conditions is what we call “maintaining the aero platform stable”. One big aid comes from the rear wing. The wing doesn’t travel close to the ground and the flow it receives is relatively clean so its aerodynamic characteristics remain stable. The more rear wing you use, the more you average the pitch and roll sensitivity and you stabilize the car in various conditions. The balance shifts less forward and backwards under pitch and squat. Unfortunately the rear wing adds a lot of drag and of course shifts the whole balance to the rear which brings understeer. So again it’s a compromise but a much more complex one than before. You can use less rear wing angle, but then the car becomes unstable. You can use more rear wing angle but the car becomes understeery as balance, but gains grip because the whole downforce raises.

We’re not done yet. Normally in sims, a change in a wings angle, roll, speed will instantly translate in an equivalent change in aerodynamic effect. For example let’s say we brake hard for a turn and this translates in a pitch of an extra 1° of angle. All the aerodynamic wings will instantly start to generate downforce and drag for an extra 1° of angle. But that’s not what happens in reality. The air can be compressed, the flow can get slower or faster, or can create “pumps” from pockets of air that get compressed and uncompressed. All of this takes tiny bit of time. It acts as if there’s some small amount of lag in the results and, yes you guessed it, it is now simulated in ACC. Sometimes this effect can be your friend, like when you start braking from high speeds it might take a fraction of a second before the balance shifts way forward and by that time your speed is slower. Sometimes it can caught you off guard, like when you’re jumping in a kerb and you think you cleared the first part, only for the aero instability to hit you hard in the second part!

By now it is pretty clear that the aero model is advanced and complex, but how we control the aero platform in an efficient way, except from adding tons of rear right wing? That was the same question I asked myself when for the first time I configured the values and went for a first ride. I’m famous for my self control so my exact words have been: “WTF what have we done?!?!!?”.

Right. It was evident that we needed a much more stiff front suspension to limit pitch. Again remember, we’re talking that we are trying to avoid mere millimetres of ride height change, let alone macroscopic movements! So we’re gonna use bumpstops right? But nobody likes bumpstops, they make you car understeery and they make your car jump on kerbs.. bliah! So we simulated variable stiffness for bumpstops. And more precise bumpstop range. And better control of their placement when you change ride height. And then we had to control the suspension from this all, so in goes a more advanced damping system… and then we realized that we had to do something to help people setup this whole thing… Remember? In AC you can change a bit of ride height, or fuel load and then you need to change again all the alignment to bring it back to your original chosen values. Nightmare. But that needs a different post, something regarding suspensions and setup…

I told you we worked a lot. I’m starting to realize it from the amount of stuff I need to write for every damn post!

More to follow in the coming days...

Assetto Corsa Competizione will be available to purchase on Steam Early Access from September 12th 2018.

Check out the Assetto Corsa Competizione here at RaceDepartment for the latest news and discussions regarding this exciting upcoming sim. We intend to host some quality League and Club Racing events as well as hosting some great community created mods (we hope!). Join in the discussion today.

Like what you see here at RaceDepartment? Don't forget to like, subscribe and follow us on social media!

 HYPED! What do you think of the latest blog post on the development of ACC? Do you like the sound of the direction the new game is going? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below!
 
Last edited:
Could make chicanes interesting again.
If the gap between car floor & road affects downforce then staying off the curbs could be faster than clipping them and lifting the car slightly. But then the tyre sidewall rigidity comes into play. And suspension deflection. And what else?......
Fun times ahead......
 
Could make chicanes interesting again.
If the gap between car floor & road affects downforce then staying off the curbs could be faster than clipping them and lifting the car slightly. But then the tyre sidewall rigidity comes into play. And suspension deflection. And what else?......
Fun times ahead......
Again, this is all something that could be and was implemented in AC already...
 
This reminds me when I was waiting for Richard Burns Rally and reading all the posts about physics development. This is really exciting, nothing of that usual " we are trying to find the balance between realism and arcade"

Absolutely, reading the recent GTR3 interview where he tried to dress up the fact it's not going to be a simulation was extremely deflating. So glad we still have dev teams teams like Kunos not willing to sell out.
 
I don't follow... If this were true my car would become unpredictable and undriveable on the way to work. Real works well in real life, why would it differ in simulation?
Reality and simulation is a little different though. There could be unrealistic effects to it unless coded perfectly, and it might not be simulated realistically. You also have to get all the effects in the FFB which becomes a whole lot of effects that has to play at the same time which could be an issue of too much things running over each other. Obviously i have no idea since i havent tested, but i think thats what the other guy meant, and i have to agree that its at least something that makes wonder how it will be implemented. Others just go "but in real life". Yeah, but in a sim it has to be coded by humans and the effects has to share space in the FFB so if you wonder about it it just means you care about these things. :)
 
For someone who works with simulation development and wind tunnel testing, all this propaganda is just propaganda.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m dying to try ACC and spends hours and hours there.

Just from a simulation point of view, you can get excellent high fidelity model behavior with simple models accounting for non-linear effects and time transients/lag effects. Sometimes simulation experts like to sacrifice accuracy in favor of complexity

I would be really impressed, not by words, but if they show real end-to-end model matching data.
 
Forget it Augusto, i am still waiting on that Mazda RX7 FD data from Aris that proves that the car has passive rear steering like he said it had, when it clearly doesn't..

I mean, most of what he is saying is implemented in other games, some as old as 10 years or more, and all this is just soundbites without proper explanations of how the data is introduced even.
 
Just to make it clear, I’m not saying that what they’re doing is wrong, far from it.

I’m just giving my point of view based on a decade long of experience with wtt, simulation and modeling and model matching.

What I’ve learned is that sometimes all the modeling gizmos are not necessarily worth it. For them it might be and Kunos (lol) to that.

I think that today’s tire modeling and now “aeromaps” are the enquivalent of last’s decade “with inputs from real drivers”.

But, as long as the game experience is worth, They could model driving bananas and I would be happy
 
Just to make it clear, I’m not saying that what they’re doing is wrong, far from it.

I’m just giving my point of view based on a decade long of experience with wtt, simulation and modeling and model matching.

What I’ve learned is that sometimes all the modeling gizmos are not necessarily worth it. For them it might be and Kunos (lol) to that.

I think that today’s tire modeling and now “aeromaps” are the enquivalent of last’s decade “with inputs from real drivers”.

But, as long as the game experience is worth, They could model driving bananas and I would be happy
Seen that many times before that developers claim they have hit the holy grail in simulation, while it just feels wrong. 4 major updates later you can't even recognize the original physics anymore.
Who was right back than, the numbers or the driverexperience?
 
Seen that many times before that developers claim they have hit the holy grail in simulation, while it just feels wrong. 4 major updates later you can't even recognize the original physics anymore.
Who was right back than, the numbers or the driverexperience?
Well yes the more complex the simulation the more difficult to make it work right, but it still better to try to make it work than simplify and fake everything
 
So we finally reached a point where we want less simulation? It is true that is impossible to please everyone huh?
Who was right back than, the numbers or the driverexperience?
Tbf numbers are as wrong as player's opinion. There are many factors that come into play and neither of those 2 things you mentioned can describe the whole picture.
That said, if you guys don't want a revised physic, you can always drive a gt3 on AC.
 
It’s not that it’s less simulation. The point is how far you have to sacrifice accuracy in favor of complexity.

For instance, I develop simulators and models for aircrafts. I have worked with military and civil airplanes. Airplanes have to cope not only with ground handling model, but also with a full 6dof non linear model, with aerodynamics working in turbulent flow, high Reynolds and aeroelasticity. I can assure you it’s far more complex than racing car simulators. And yet even the most bizarre effects, like aeroelastic effects, can be fully simulated with very simple models. Of course we could go crazy and simulate all aeroelastic effects in all its aeroelasticity glory, but for what?

Tl:dr; My point in is: if you don’t show me that your simulation data is matching actual data in an end-to-end simulation, than all the complexity is just unnecessary.

You can’t just simulate for the sake of simulation. Creating super complex models not necessarily makes a simulation more accurate or better. Actually the experience shows that at a certain point, it’s just waste of time.
 
Care to explain why “fake” and how that affects a simulation?
Well there are alot of games that "fake" things in order to bypass calculations or because it jus easier. For example there were sims that used to just simulate driving while the car has some amount off grip, but when the car is sliding the whole systems can't work because it isn't simulating whole natural movement of the car. Another example is Richard Burns Rally where the whole pressure of engine is simulated (I don't know how deeply) and so bad landing could cause overpressure and blown turbine for example, where in may other games such things are done more simply.

I agree with your previous post, but I hope that they know what they are doing and still expect simulations to get more complex over time. Well, maybe ' more advanced' is the right word for it
 
The point is how far you have to sacrifice accuracy in favor of complexity.
Why do you automatically assume you sacrifice accuracy when things get more complex? I agree that more complex doesn't automatically provide a better end result, but shouldn't you wait and see some actual results before stating that this is just propaganda? I mean, you do realize you don't know everything about everything, do you? Just sayin'...
 
Why do you automatically assume you sacrifice accuracy when things get more complex? I agree that more complex doesn't automatically provide a better end result, but shouldn't you wait and see some actual results before stating that this is just propaganda? I mean, you do realize you don't know everything about everything, do you? Just sayin'...

Not automatically, but very likely based on the professional experience. I work with aero/mechanical/systems modeling. For aero I design wind tunnel tests, reduce data and create aero models. Then adjust them with flight tests for military training devices and level D flight simulators.

Airplanes fly in High Reynolds, with bizarre aeroeffects. And simple models, like deltas over simple functions works like a charm. That's why I'm VERY skeptical with aeromaps. You could use very simple models (like the approach of multi wings used in AC) to describe many bizarre phenomena, such as pitch/roll/yaw sensitivity. As long as you have the data, you can design, model and match it. Usually the MATCHING with real data is what most of "simulators" are lacking today.

Aeromaps as described by the physics expert simply won't work as intended. It's just naive to believe that you'll get:
1) A better response than simple models accounting for diverse effects
2) Correct prediction of turbulent flow in near real time
 

Latest News

Are you buying car setups?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Back
Top