Assetto Corsa: Bonus Pack unveiled

Howard · Jun 18, 2015

Kunos Simulazioni have revealed details and screenshots for the upcoming free Bonus Pack to be released as part of the 1.2 update for Assetto Corsa in July.

The pack will consist of five cars and one track, but will be a free DLC for all Assetto Corsa owners. The Bonus Pack contains:

Alfa Romeo Mito Quadrifoglio Verde
Audi Sport Quattro
Lamborghini Miura
Nissan Nismo GT-R
Toyota GT-86
Circuit of Zandvoort

Check out some pictures of the Bonus Pack below. Look at the rest in our RaceTube.

paracletus · Jun 20, 2015

It's weird to rate the quality of handling physics based on the amount of cpu use, hmm :/ never heard that one before. Bit naïve that.
imho - rf, AC, GSC all do a great job of creating convincing models for sim racers. I appreciate them all.
Arguing about "which is best" is subjective at best - until the likes of Lewis Hamilton turn up to set the record straight.

Bernd Graf · Jun 21, 2015

I've never been more excited about moderately powered cars in my life!

Requiem84 · Jun 21, 2015

Arent't rf2 etc just poorly optimized?

And cpu's do more than just physics calculating...

Frederic Schornstein · Jun 21, 2015

Requiem84 said:
Arent't rf2 etc just poorly optimized?

And cpu's do more than just physics calculating...

CPU on rF2 is well optimized, but the GPU not so much. It runs much smoother with lots of AI than AC, but that mostly depens on how both engines manage the physics calculations of the AI.

Torcano · Jun 21, 2015

I like how every single AC topic, no matter what the context is, just ends up turning into people who think "hurr AC bad, rF2/GSCE good durr" trying to convince people that AC is terrible and others are dumb to play it at all. Sim racing community reminds me of the vapid dark souls community sometimes, everybody wants to force opinions down other people's throats with an extremely condescending holier than thou attitude instead of allowing people to enjoy what they like.

TzZyO · Jun 21, 2015

Glaurung said:
Are you talking seriously???
I'm a professional structural engineer and let me say I know what is FEM program, I use professional programs (like Strand7) almost every day and occasionally I wrote them too for my own professional work (I do not sell software).
Believe me or not, I can assure you that:

"simple" linear elastic analysis of beams or shells connected in a model let's say of some hundreds nodes, is computed by a modern CPU in less than a tenth of a second. Not entering too much in detail, but, the fem method applied in vehicle dynamics is done with a real-time linear time-history analysis that could be implemented also in a excel spreadsheet. The problems arises with non-linear analysis, where many iterations may be necessary to solve the equilibrium equations of just a sampled instant of time, but this analysis are necessary to model ductile behaviour of structures after the yield stress and is definitely not the case of vehicle dynamics.

it's definitely not true that a more sofisticated finite element model is always better of a simpler one

the precision of the results of a finite element analysis are more close-fitting to reality depending on the accuracy of the costitutive models of the materials (for elastic materials: Young modulus and Poisson ratio) but most of all the boundary conditions (the inertial forces transmitted by the vehicle and the asphalt roughness & bumps)

it's a matter of fact in the engineering practice that simple no-frills FEM models with few well-known parameters give in general more reliable results than over-detailed, complicated, huge models (in structural engineering we call them "monsters") where the analyst has to input a lot of parameters not completely mastered.

That said, your guesswork that a sim that do not stress much the CPU has a poor tyre model is completely ridiculous.

1, 2 & 4. "By a modern CPU". That aside, AC doesn't feature any FEM-like calculations in the first place. rF2 and PC models use pretty rough meshing for their tires which you can't exactly call a "monster" model. Still, are you sure that the tires over tarmac case is a strictly linear business?
What about making a FEM-based real time vehicle dynamics simulation by yourself then?
3. How does that contradict my point?

Torcano said:
I like how every single AC topic, no matter what the context is, just ends up turning into people who think "hurr AC bad, rF2/GSCE good durr" trying to convince people that AC is terrible and others are dumb to play it at all. Sim racing community reminds me of the vapid dark souls community sometimes, everybody wants to force opinions down other people's throats with an extremely condescending holier than thou attitude instead of allowing people to enjoy what they like.

Really? I mostly saw smug for no reason AC fans all over internet trying to disparage Project CARS and those who like it. Just trying to remind the said fans there is nothing about Assetto Corsa that would make it stand out. You simply get what you paid for with AC. It's not a magic bullet. Rather, a magic trick that uses too much fake FFB to fool you into believing it's a better sim than it actually is and hide its proper feedback deficiency.

Naliport Halulam · Jun 21, 2015

TzZyO said:
1, 2 & 4. "By a modern CPU". That aside, AC doesn't feature any FEM-like calculations in the first place. rF2 and PC models use pretty rough meshing for their tires which you can't exactly call a "monster" model. Still, are you sure that the tires over tarmac case is a strictly linear business?
What about making a FEM-based real time vehicle dynamics simulation by yourself then?
3. How does that contradict my point?

Really? I mostly saw smug for no reason AC fans all over internet trying to disparage Project CARS and those who like it. Just trying to remind the said fans there is nothing about Assetto Corsa that would make it stand out. You simply get what you paid for with AC. It's not a magic bullet. Rather, a magic trick that uses too much fake FFB to fool you into believing it's a better sim than it actually is and hide its proper feedback deficiency.

and because you saw some fanboys war on some unknowns forums, you come here to spread misinformation on people who had nothing to do with.

please for the sake of the community stop this provocative manner and misinformation, in 2015 all simulation are mostly equal and the only things who change is the content, to suit people's taste and desire.

Torcano · Jun 21, 2015

TzZyO said:
Really? I mostly saw smug for no reason AC fans all over internet trying to disparage Project CARS and those who like it. Just trying to remind the said fans there is nothing about Assetto Corsa that would make it stand out. You simply get what you paid for with AC. It's not a magic bullet. Rather, a magic trick that uses too much fake FFB to fool you into believing it's a better sim than it actually is and hide its proper feedback deficiency.

I said sim racing community acts vapid, it takes into account AC fanboys trying desperately to poop on PCars too, never said AC fanboys are immune to being ridiculed. On this topic in particular it is you who seems to keep saying again and again that AC has dumbed down fake physics when the point of the thread was to inform people about the cars that will be available in the bonus pack. Off-topic much?

TzZyO · Jun 21, 2015

Naliport Halulam said:
and because you saw some fanboys war on some unknowns forums, you come here to spread misinformation on people who had nothing to do with.

please for the sake of the community stop this provocative manner and misinformation, in 2015 all simulation are mostly equal and the only things who change is the content, to suit people's taste and desire.

Where exactly did you see "misinformation" in my posts?
Let's say in 2015 all simulation titles have their share of drawbacks. But at least some are trying to revolutionize the approach and are quite close to actually making it, getting a lot of negative reaction in the process.

Torcano said:
I said sim racing community acts vapid, it takes into account AC fanboys trying desperately to poop on PCars too, never said AC fanboys are immune to being ridiculed. On this topic in particular it is you who seems to keep saying again and again that AC has dumbed down fake physics when the point of the thread was to inform people about the cars that will be available in the bonus pack. Off-topic much?

You probably didn't care to read my first post in this thread, but I am interested in KS's catching with the pack. That's why I clearly pointed that just hoping their fans will be always supportive to them no matter what they do to the physics is a bit too much. Also I had a message for the fans too... One needs to stop being a fan and to start developing a critical faculty. If you fanatically support a developer, you are just spoiling them, which is bad for all of us in the long run.

Naliport Halulam · Jun 21, 2015

TzZyO said:
Where exactly did you see "misinformation" in my posts?
Let's say in 2015 all simulation titles have their share of drawbacks. But at least some are trying to revolutionize the approach and are quite close to actually making it, getting a lot of negative reaction in the process.

You probably didn't care to read my first post in this thread, but I am interested in KS's catching with the pack. That's why I clearly pointed that just hoping their fans will be always supportive to them no matter what they do to the physics is a bit too much. Also I had a message for the fans too... One needs to stop being a fan and to start developing a critical faculty. If you fanatically support a developer, you are just spoiling them, which is bad for all of us in the long run.

they have already enough criticize here and on their own support forum, and every possible subject are already being talked hundred of times.

it's time to stop calling other fanboys, you don't own the absolute truth nor the others, but you only put oil on fire with your provocating manners.

Torcano · Jun 21, 2015

TzZyO said:
Yes, maybe this time around Kunos Simulazioni will actually come up with some "proper simulation of physics" for a change. And some proper FFB to boot, where one could actually feel the self-alignment torque instead of flurries of virtual inertia effects more at home as an input for a motion platform, not a wheel.
Also, maybe they'll suddenly discover that chassis and tires flex have to do something with proper simulation as well.

That was your first post in this thread, I don't spot any constructive criticism there. All I see is - "These other sims seem to do things in a different way, you better ditch your approach... go on ahead and follow them like good little doggies." And as I pointed out in my post, the tone of this message is being delivered in a condescending holier than thou attitude. And now you are just being incredibly edgy by saying obvious things that most, if not all people with working brains would know like "One needs to stop being a fan and to start developing a critical faculty. If you fanatically support a developer, you are just spoiling them, which is bad for all of us in the long run." Who are you trying to convince here exactly? Because last I checked RD is not a fanboy site... they even made that one open letter to Kunos which was not exactly received well amongst the fanboy community, so yeah, you are pretty much preaching for no reason whatsoever. Peace.

Stereo · Jun 21, 2015

TzZyO said:
Just trying to remind the said fans there is nothing about Assetto Corsa that would make it stand out. You simply get what you paid for with AC. It's not a magic bullet. Rather, a magic trick that uses too much fake FFB to fool you into believing it's a better sim than it actually is and hide its proper feedback deficiency.

I don't know where this is even coming from... could you link to the post where AC's devs documented which parts of the FFB are physically simulated and which are canned effects?

I don't play all the sims available (not the money or time) but AC's ffb has probably 90% the same forces as the other games I've tried. The only difference off the top of my head is low speed (under 3km/h) forces - other games weight+damp the wheel way more than AC. Which, yeah, is a matter of priorities, because it's a driving simulator, not a parking simulator.

TzZyO · Jun 23, 2015

Torcano said:
That was your first post in this thread, I don't spot any constructive criticism there. All I see is - "These other sims seem to do things in a different way, you better ditch your approach... go on ahead and follow them like good little doggies." And as I pointed out in my post, the tone of this message is being delivered in a condescending holier than thou attitude. And now you are just being incredibly edgy by saying obvious things that most, if not all people with working brains would know like "One needs to stop being a fan and to start developing a critical faculty. If you fanatically support a developer, you are just spoiling them, which is bad for all of us in the long run." Who are you trying to convince here exactly? Because last I checked RD is not a fanboy site... they even made that one open letter to Kunos which was not exactly received well amongst the fanboy community, so yeah, you are pretty much preaching for no reason whatsoever. Peace.

My attitude is my attitude and is not the subject of this thread anyway. It's not the best one for sure, but can you exactly call it extreme? I'm annoyed with how AC is being developed so far, that's all. Just pointed out that it would be about time to see some radical changes... Let's see them finally releasing a great physics/tire model and your reaction to that

Look at how my posts are peppered with "constructivist reply" markers, and you'll see just how "not a fanboy community" that is...
Well, at least some people can actually discuss matters instead of pressing funny marker buttons... I admire that.

Stereo said:
I don't know where this is even coming from... could you link to the post where AC's devs documented which parts of the FFB are physically simulated and which are canned effects?

I don't play all the sims available (not the money or time) but AC's ffb has probably 90% the same forces as the other games I've tried. The only difference off the top of my head is low speed (under 3km/h) forces - other games weight+damp the wheel way more than AC. Which, yeah, is a matter of priorities, because it's a driving simulator, not a parking simulator.

KS don't even bother telling us what we are getting in the patches most of the time... As if they'd openly admit the sim has a lot of canned or artificial stuff going on. Take those braking and "flatspotting" effects... Yeah, of course, they are properly simulated

Especially if you make yourself believe in that...

Torcano · Jun 23, 2015

@TzZyO And your response to stereo is still you making claims about canned physics and nothing more. And yes, your attitude will determine the response you get. It's like you saying "yeah I paint with poop but I can't understand why there are so many flies around it". Your argument hangs desperately on "I don't get what sort of physics implementation Kunos is using, I'd bet they are canned. Sooo fake, don't get why people enjoy it so please stop". As for funny marker buttons I'd say the same thing as you, that's how I converse online since it is hard to convey emotions here and that I don't want to be seen as overly aggressive.

Glaurung · Jun 23, 2015

I'm looking forward to smash that Quattro in the Trento-Bondone

coret3x · Jun 24, 2015

thanks for an excellent track! This week ACRL is running this in their GT3 series. My only initial thoughts are that some turns could be made a bit more unique (e.g. commercial posters etc) as when racing 30 laps your brains sometimes slips out and you forget where you are.. yeah also, the textures of the gravel outside some turns could be a bit less repetitive. thanks again for your efforts, ive never been to this track but i kinda have now after running 100+ laps here

Stereo · Jun 25, 2015

TzZyO said:
BeamNG and RoR are rather strange projects. It's really weird how they manage to perform that poorly when it comes to portraying rigid bodies interaction. I mean, you'd expect steel rods to behave like steel rods, yet they are pretty much rubbery. This product simply doesn't take itself seriously from the get go. And one can mess up even the best of concepts by simply not being serious enough.

Fundamentally there are no rigid bodies in either - it's all beams (springs) and nodes (ball joints - complete rotational freedom) The extent it's rigid is that some of the springs are strong enough that they don't deform visibly.

Springs are not 'generally'* numerically stable - actually a large part of why games run at such high frequencies is to compensate for this. In a simple model, like a weight attached to a damped spring, you can calculate the maximum timestep that stays stable - it's basically proportional to the frequency the system oscillates at. (*generally in the mathematical sense - for all possible inputs)

The tires in RoR are especially a victim of this - realistic spring rates for an inflated tire carcass are higher than it can keep stable, and the frequency it can run at is limited by CPU power. That's why (a) it's about large trucks that move slowly (b) the tires are squishier than RL.

So numerical stability is an issue for 2 reasons: (a) you get unbounded behaviour (cars exploding) if you violate it (b) it limits what inputs your model can accept, regardless for what numbers are viable in reality.

Simpler models are easier to keep stable & as a bonus, run in less cpu time so you can use higher frequencies. Like Glaurung said, past a certain size a model becomes a 'monster' that you can't predict - so you don't have any way to get accuracy out of it, or even locate the source of bugs. Flexibility comes at a price.