AMS 2 | Latest Big Update For Automobilista 2 Has Been Deployed

kmanitou

@Simberia
46
54
Can you help me understand what you mean by "making it feel more like rFactor"?

If you'd said "making it feel more like AMS1", I could have reasonably suspected that you were referring to Reiza's particular way to do FFB?

I'm not quite sure what to make of your "to its full potential" comment. Is it related to driving feel? AI behaviour? Racing Rules? Wet weather? Snow? Day->Night->Day transitions? Multiplayer? Sound? Graphics? Something I haven't thought of?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

P.S. If your argument/opinion is "I don't much care for the direction of AMS2" then OK. Horses for courses and all that.
I meant a stiffer turning reaction, with less suspension movement and tire flex, less sideways nuance, more like a brick. What I don't understand is that it didn't feel like that the following day. Now it's fine again. Raceroom had changed my wheel's rotation (I hadn't played RR in a long time), and I did a full reboot.

The full potential is the detailed physics and contact patch, as opposed to the primitive simple model that people are used to. I've seen the Ian Bell Derangement Syndrome in action here, but Reiza seems to be moving forward, not backward nevertheless.
 
The more I drive, the more I'm drawn in. The slow Lancer felt perfectly natural. The Puma has scary front end lift and is hard to see out of at VIR. I know I'll do an MCR2000 series and an FVee series when we get custom championships.

Still, what I miss relates to content. I miss having a GT40, a Cobra, a Stingray Corvette, a Porsche 906, a Ferrari 250LM... and the historic tracks to run them on. Fortunately there are moddable sims that offer such things.
 

BrunoB

Too much Goebbels
1,716
912
I miss having a GT40, a Cobra, a Stingray Corvette, a Porsche 906, a Ferrari 250LM.
Oh man if they just created a Chaparral or how about a LeMans DeltaWing :inlove:


Chaparral-2F-Chevrolet_7.jpg lemans-24-h-delta-wing.jpg
 
I don’t think anyone has mentioned this before so I’m going to say it. Reiza really needs to change the current manner in which the save replay option becomes available.

Hopefully this is essentially another “placeholder” sort of implementation since this release is the first with the feature available. As things currently are though, I find not being able to save your race replay if you run out of fuel or otherwise can’t make it back to your pit box after the checkered flag a very disappointing state of affairs. I just really hope this isn’t a limitation of the game engine similar to how I worry about neutral gearbox control.
 
1,196
419
Cosmos
Is there a semantics bug going around RD or something? This is literally the fourth example this week of someone getting pent up over little more than words. I guess with the lockdown people have nothing better to do but worry about petty issues? :rolleyes:

It's a game patch. The tyres have been changed and they now feel better. I for one don't care how they word that in the patch notes. Why? Because it really doesn't matter...
It does matter to some people. When I read tyre physics, to me that's the physics that dictates tyres (ie. the tyre model/engine). Changing the tyre model/engine is changing the very game itself but not touching the tyre model/engine and just changing the tyre of a vehicle (eg. like a modder would do when updating one of his/her mod-cars) is not updating the game itself but just updating content.

You cannot achieve truly core-fundamental differences/progression without updating the engine - be it physics/tyre engine, sound engine, graphics engine, UI engine, etc.). Everything is dictated by the ENGINE. Just like in real-life, no matter what type of tyre is created, it's overall behavior is still limited to & dictated by our "real-life physics engine".

There's a big difference between refining content and actually working on the physics/tyre engine that all content is based on and dictated by. Just like in real-life there's a big difference between a company coming out with a new tyre (updating content in a game) and "God" literally changing the universe's laws of physics/chemistry/biology (updating a game's physics/tyre engine).
 
Last edited:
It does matter to some people. When I read tyre physics, to me that's the physics that dictates tyres (ie. the tyre model/engine). Changing the tyre model/engine is changing the very game itself but not touching the tyre model/engine and just changing the tyre of a vehicle (eg. like a modder would do when updating one of his/her mod-cars) is not updating the game itself but just updating content.

You cannot achieve truly core-fundamental differences/progression without updating the engine - be it physics/tyre engine, sound engine, graphics engine, UI engine, etc.). Everything is dictated by the ENGINE. Just like in real-life, no matter what type of tyre is created, it's overall behavior is still limited to & dictated by our "real-life physics engine".

Big difference between refining content and actually working on the physics/tyre engine that all content is based on and dictated by. Just like in real-life there's a big difference between a company coming out with a new tyre (updating content in a game) and "God" literally changing the universe's laws of physics/chemistry/biology (updating a game's physics/tyre engine).

But how much is the engine and how much is the numbers put in? New tyre models can be overrated, look at AC, iRacing, they've got through 20+ revisions between them and still neither are exactly convincing. Isn't it better to have a simple one and fudge/ tweak the numbers to make it feel /behave as 1:1 as possible according to real driver feedback? What's better, a sim with 1 tyre contact patch which handles convincingly, or one with 27 but which is like ice at the limit? Better to have a simple model yielding accurate handling than an overly complicated one which gives duff results, no?
 
1,196
419
Cosmos
But how much is the engine and how much is the numbers put in? New tyre models can be overrated, look at AC, iRacing, they've got through 20+ revisions between them and still neither are exactly convincing. Isn't it better to have a simple one and fudge/ tweak the numbers to make it feel /behave as 1:1 as possible according to real driver feedback? What's better, a sim with 1 tyre contact patch which handles convincingly, or one with 27 but which is like ice at the limit? Better to have a simple model yielding accurate handling than an overly complicated one which gives duff results, no?
I agree 100%. It's not about how complex the engine is, it's about how realistic & natural the final result/output is. I never said anything about the physics or tyre engine being too basic and needing to be more complex. What I said was, for there to truly be core-fundamental progression in physics / vehicle behavior of a videogame (especially at and over the limit), the engine itself needs to be worked on.

You can drive 100 different cars/tyres in the same game (AC or AMS2 or whatever game) and no matter how good or bad each of those 100 cars/mods/tyres are, you can always tell from overall general vehicle handling & behavior that you're driving the same game (the same "universe" or physics/tyre engine) despite driving 100 different cars/tyres. But, all it takes is driving 1 or 2 cars in a totally different game engine (let's say going from AMS2 to AC, or LFS to iR, or whatever) and you instantly know you're driving in a different "universe." No matter what numbers are punched into new content, if the physics/tyre engine - the background numbers, formulas, algorithms, coding, etc. - doesn't change then you'll still have the same overall tyre/vehicle behavior. If there's work on the physics/tyre engine though then true fundamental progress & changes can be made to the core driving experience.

You can have humans (physics engine) of all different shapes, sizes, colours, personalities, etc. (mods/content). We all still have the same basic behavior to eachother, same basic look, same basic intellect, abilities, non-abilities, bodies, eye-sight, strength, balance, anatomies, chemistry, etc. etc. However, if you go from a human to a bird or spider or a flower then you have fundamentally a totally different creature (physics engine).


P.S. If you go far enough then we're all the same because we're all just atoms or quarks or whatever and all games are the same because they're all just 1's and 0's but ignore that for my analogy :D


Anyways, I'm off to play some AMS1 (don't have AMS2 yet) :)
 
Last edited:
668
505
UK
Isn't it better to have a simple one and fudge/ tweak the numbers to make it feel /behave as 1:1 as possible according to real driver feedback?

There’s a limit to how much you can tweak a simple model (see below). You can’t make a simple model carry out complex calculations.

What's better, a sim with 1 tyre contact patch which handles convincingly, or one with 27 but which is like ice at the limit?

Whilst I agree in principle, it depends a lot on how well the more complex model is implemented. iRacing’s new tyre model was seen as an improvement but still has plenty of critics. That said, many people considered that almost anything would have been an improvement over the old model. On the other hand, the introduction of the 5-point tyre model in ACC (over the original single point model) significantly changed the handling of the cars for the better. For example, the original model couldn’t detect when only part of the tyre contact patch was on a curb so tended to make the car more unstable as you started to run off the track. There was nothing you could really tweak in those circumstances with the old model to make it react more realistically (Kunos tried).
 
Still, what I miss relates to content. I miss having a GT40, a Cobra, a Stingray Corvette, a Porsche 906, a Ferrari 250LM... and the historic tracks to run them on. Fortunately there are moddable sims that offer such things.

I don't know if you have access to the beta forum but there are strong hints that historic content will be significant going forward. Not sure we will get the cars on your list but it should be interesting, and there are historic tracks to go along with the cars too.
 
I’ve tried AMS2 last weekend for the first time. Installed my controls and tried it with the F3 but it seems I need to turn my wheel way to far to have something happening? It doesn’t feel as direct as it should? My wheel on the screen is 1:1 with my real wheel so it doesn’t seem a problem with the DOR, is this normal behaviour?
 

BrunoB

Too much Goebbels
1,716
912
I’ve tried AMS2 last weekend for the first time. Installed my controls and tried it with the F3 but it seems I need to turn my wheel way to far to have something happening? It doesn’t feel as direct as it should? My wheel on the screen is 1:1 with my real wheel so it doesn’t seem a problem with the DOR, is this normal behaviour?
I dont know if this is useable for you - but when I calibrated my rather unusual wheel - I undercalibrated it.
So when the menu asked me to turn fully left I just turned it half way.
And when asked 90%(?) then I just turned it half of the originally half way (=1/4 way).

ByTheWay: It doesnt cost anything to try something like that.:p
 

kmanitou

@Simberia
46
54
That’s weird.. I would have put rF2, Automobilista & Raceroom in the same category. Given that they all have a common ancestor. I am not questioning your comment.. just found it interesting.
What I find common between nK Pro/rF2/PC2 and AMS 2 is the free nature of the steering, without baked-in resistance on turn-in to "protect" the driver from wild inputs. Whether that's accurate or not, I wouldn't know. Besides, most of that stuff is on a car-to-car basis.
 

BrunoB

Too much Goebbels
1,716
912
I don't have Chaparrals in my AMS 2, but at least I get to have them by my AMS 2. This is on my wall above my monitor. Signed by Jim Hall and Phil Hill.
Oh man you are lucky.:thumbsup:
When I was a teenager I had a picture in my room of Jim Hall and one of his first cars (The LeMans thing if I remember right).
And he was my hero because it sounded like he was quite a selfmade man with some quite crazy and revolutionary ideas.
I can remember it was discussed if the LeMans car actually had automatic gears or was it just some kind of torque converter.:x3:

ByTheWay: Im glad your pic dont include his most awfull creation - the most ugly racing car ever build. I wont even mention its name.:sleep:
 
I’ve tried AMS2 last weekend for the first time. Installed my controls and tried it with the F3 but it seems I need to turn my wheel way to far to have something happening? It doesn’t feel as direct as it should? My wheel on the screen is 1:1 with my real wheel so it doesn’t seem a problem with the DOR, is this normal behaviour?

Perhaps your wheel is not correctly calibrated? The text accompanying the wheel calibration is ambiguous and can lead to confusion. After turning the wheel to its maximum extent and pressing "Save", the user is prompted to turn the wheel so that it is 90° left or right.

What the wording doesn't make clear is if the wheel should be returned to its original position (yes, it should) and then turned 90° or if it should be turned 90° immediately. The correct action is probably clear to the devs, but a user could unwittingly set the wrong angle of rotation and spoil the whole driving experience.

I've asked Reiza a couple of times to amend the instructions but to no avail.
 
Top