Automobilista 2 | New 2019 Stock Car Trailer Released

[Paul Jeffrey]

Reiza Studios have issued a surprise new Automobilista 2 trailer to celebrate the final round of the Brazilian Stock Car Series this weekend - featuring these awesome cars in AMS 2!

As I'm sure most reading this will be well aware, one of the key real world licences within the Automobilista franchise is the Brazil based Stock Car series, a high power, high action category featuring some of the finest drivers in Brazilian motorsport.

With the 2019 season marking both the 40th anniversary of the series and the final year of the current regulation cars, Reiza Studios have taken the opportunity to launch a brand new trailer with the vehicles in AMS 2 - on the eve of a championship deciding weekend that sees no less than six drivers in the fight for overall honours.

Enjoy!

Automobilista 2 will be available March 2020.

Want to chat about the sim? Head over to the AMS 2 sub forum and start a thread now!

 

[Case_]

The hate for PC2 and anything even remotely related never ceases to amaze me.

 

[WhiteViper3D]

Looks good. Will we also get some GT3/GTE cars ? (This is crucial for me - buy or no buy). If AMS2 is just a "fancier" AMS, I will be disappointed.

https://forum.reizastudios.com/threads/automobilista-2-car-and-track-list.7118/ Will be expanded gradually, but I am sure that all known GT3 cars will be there. So far there are 2

 

[Alex72]

I know But the result of everything will be felt, when the game is released, everything else is speculative. But i'm looking forward to it.

What happens in Reiza 51, stays in Reiza 51...just a friendly reminder by the forum warrior

You can see if its at least decent from videos. Arcade is super easy to spot and good physics will show on video. However to know exactly how good you have to test of course.

 

[CrimsonEminence]

You can see if its at least decent from videos. Arcade is super easy to spot and good physics will show on video.

Arcade also can have good physics...even if inaccurate.

However to know exactly how good you have to test of course.

That's the point.

 

[dreamer al]

https://forum.reizastudios.com/threads/automobilista-2-car-and-track-list.7118/ Will be expanded gradually, but I am sure that all known GT3 cars will be there. So far there are 2

Thanks, but the only one I see is Mercedes-AMG GT3, which will be nice. Hoping there may be more in the future - a DLC perhaps.

 

[sentry87]

Blinders? Ok then tell me exactly what PC2 got right. Help me "remove the blinders".

Oh by the way thanks for proving my point. The fact that Reiza chose this engine has somehow given it credibility, which is exactly what i've been saying.
PC2 wasn't even considered a simulator a while ago,and now because Reiza chose it....like the force chooses the Jedi... it automatically means that it's really good, and all this time it was SMS that couldn't make it work....since 2009....
Like i said, just like SMS did...Reiza will probably do some improvements, but some issues will still exist, just like they did since 2009.

PC2 was indeed considered a simulator before AMS2, albeit it just misses the mark in some areas but the sophistication of the tyre model it's safe to call it a simulator. Tire flex, heat transfer to the tires, change in tire pressures and performance due to changes in track condtion etc

 

[RichardHessels]

Visually is wonderful, piece of art, physics... Hmm, no

Whats wrong with that physics engine? Pcars was always aimed at a broader audience.
But some cars were really, really good. Some where complete failures.
Its all about entering the proper data and than tweaking them till they give a good output.

 

[ermo]

I'm curious what people are referring to when they say "physics".

Spoiler: Thoughts on simulation qualities

- Solid body mechanics are well understood and certainly qualify as physics.

- Suspension mechanics are well understood and certainly qualify as physics.

- Aerodynamics (as simulated in racing sims) basically boil down to a set of extra force vectors being manipulated in response to pitch, yaw, roll, ride-height, wind and drafts. MADNESS supports this (yes, wind too).

- Collision behaviour is well understood but expensive to simulate. Also certainly qualifies as physics.

- Driveline physics are well understood and certainly qualify as physics.

- The Tyre<->Track interaction physics is a really difficult field, yet Reiza (who have experience with both gMotor1, gMotor2 and MADNESS mind you) are on record asserting that MADNESS offers the more advanced models of the three (SETA and LiveTrack 3.0).

- FFB is part how you translate the forces and moments the tyres generate into the steering rack and part "everything else" (acceleration cues, chassis vibration cues, chassis and joint twisting cues). Then comes the part where you need to map the physics input to a wildly diverging set of hardware output devices with all sorts of compromises inherent to each specific piece of hardware. And finally, some people prefer an exaggerated response to certain physical events, though they may not even be aware of this being the case. Reiza asserts that the FFB primitives or building-blocks available in the MADNESS engine leave nothing to be desired and also notes that the track surface may play a surprisingly large role in the FFB experience.

- How the camera moves in response to the car changing direction also influences the simracer's perception of movement.

- Finally, the car/sim calibration that brings all of the above together.

Having read a lot of arguments surrounding what people like and don't like, I'm inclined to think that the combination of consistency in car calibration quality, reasonable collision behaviour, good camera/sound/FFB cues (with as low latency as possible) is what most non-engineers are really referring to when they use the term "physics".

It might not really have anything to do with the depth of simulation in various subsystems per se. As an example, note that despite AMS1 using a much simpler tyre model than PC2, people are still praising AMS1 for its "physics"'.

In contrast, people insist that pC2 is all over the map in terms of car/tyre calibration and some people find it difficult to deal with the camera and FFB settings in pC2. The end result is that their pC2 experience is inconsistent (not to mention different to what they're perhaps used to) which leads them to conclude that they dislike it and wave around the label "physics" to accompany this dislike when what they really ought to be saying is "the driving experience feels inconsistent/off for me and it's certainly different than what I'm used to in other sims with different tyre models".

FWIW, we had a guy in the PC2 WMD forums who stated he owned a Lancer EVO mkVI. He felt the in-game representaiton drove *exactly* like his car, meaning that he could make the same inputs in-sim and IRL and get the same outcome. If his words are to be taken at face value, that's a data point which suggests that the MADNESS engine *can* produce "good physics" (i.e. a simulated driving experience consistent with reality) via correct calibration. OTOH, others couldn't get their real life vehicle experience to match up with the experience PC2 served up, so it's certainly not just a case of "plug in the correct numbers and off you go to the races". And I know for a fact that the vehicle dynamics guys didn't just put random numbers into the various physics files.

But I digress. Didn't intend to derail the thread.

 

[KODIAK]

very nice, i just wished they got more v8 supercars tracks and cars.

still excited regardless.

 

[DaVeX↯]

PC2 wasn't even considered a simulator a while ago,and now because Reiza chose it....like the force chooses the Jedi... it automatically means that it's really good, and all this time it was SMS that couldn't make it work....since 2009....
Like i said, just like SMS did...Reiza will probably do some improvements, but some issues will still exist, just like they did since 2009.

Ahem no, PC2 was a big disappointment due the SMS fiasco on delivering a coherent package. Some cars on PC2 are a pure joy to drive since have been modelled properly but most of them, due to strict times, are rushed and totally wrong (as they admitted).
So we have some good cars on PC2 which demonstrates how good the madness engine and the seta tyre model can be...on top of this we know those are evolved since PC release and Reiza is adding some of his "magic" on it...
At the end of the day there are all the basics for a great title and for really see the potential of the engine...so yes, I am very positive about it and if I will proven to be wrong I will just have another game sitting on the shelf (and there are a lot of them, yes rF2 and ACC I am looking at you two...)

 

[Emery]

Thanks, but the only one I see is Mercedes-AMG GT3, which will be nice. Hoping there may be more in the future - a DLC perhaps.

Guess you're not counting the Aston Martin GT3 as "likely to come in the future"? It's down at the bottom of that list.

 

[dreamer al]

Guess you're not counting the Aston Martin GT3 as "likely to come in the future"? It's down at the bottom of that list.

I read that, but says "most likely". I hope he is right. Time will tell.

 

[dreamer al]

messed up - ignore

 

[Daniel Monteiro]

I'm curious what people are referring to when they say "physics".

Spoiler: Thoughts on simulation qualities

- Solid body mechanics are well understood and certainly qualify as physics.

- Suspension mechanics are well understood and certainly qualify as physics.

- Aerodynamics (as simulated in racing sims) basically boil down to a set of extra force vectors being manipulated in response to pitch, yaw, roll, ride-height, wind and drafts. MADNESS supports this (yes, wind too).

- Collision behaviour is well understood but expensive to simulate. Also certainly qualifies as physics.

- Driveline physics are well understood and certainly qualify as physics.

- The Tyre<->Track interaction physics is a really difficult field, yet Reiza (who have experience with both gMotor1, gMotor2 and MADNESS mind you) are on record asserting that MADNESS offers the more advanced models of the three (SETA and LiveTrack 3.0).

- FFB is part how you translate the forces and moments the tyres generate into the steering rack and part "everything else" (acceleration cues, chassis vibration cues, chassis and joint twisting cues). Then comes the part where you need to map the physics input to wildly diverging set of hardware output devices with all sorts of compromises inherent to each specific piece of hardware. And finally, some people prefer an exaggerated response to certain physical events, though they may not even be aware of this being the case. Reiza asserts that the FFB primitives or building-blocks available in the MADNESS engine leave nothing to be desired and also notes that the track surface may play a surprisingly large role in the FFB experience.

- How the camera moves in response to the car changing direction also influences the simracer's perception of movement.

- Finally, the car/sim calibration that brings all of the above together.

Having read a lot of arguments surrounding what people like and don't like, I'm inclined to think that the combination of consistency in car calibration quality, reasonable collision behaviour, good camera/sound/FFB cues (with as low latency as possible) is what most non-engineers are really referring to when they use the term "physics".

It might not really have anything to do with the depth of simulation in various subsystems per se. As an example, note that despite AMS1 using a much simpler tyre model than PC2, people are still praising AMS1 for its "physics"'.

In contrast, people insist that pC2 is all over the map in terms of car/tyre calibration and some people find it difficult to deal with the camera and FFB settings in pC2. The end result is that their pC2 experience is inconsistent (not to mention different to what they're perhaps used to) which leads them to conclude that they dislike it and wave around the label "physics" to accompany this dislike when what they really ought to be saying is "the driving experience feels inconsistent/off for me and it's certainly different than what I'm used to in other sims with different tyre models".

FWIW, we had a guy in the PC2 WMD forums who stated he owned a Lancer EVO mkVI. He felt the in-game representaiton drove *exactly* like his car, meaning that he could make the same inputs in-sim and IRL and get the same outcome. If his words are to be taken at face value, that's a data point which suggests that the MADNESS engine *can* produce "good physics" (i.e. a simulated driving experience consistent with reality) via correct calibration. OTOH, others couldn't get their real life vehicle experience to match up with the experience PC2 served up, so it's certainly not just a case of "plug in the correct numbers and off you go to the races". And I know for a fact that the vehicle dynamics guys didn't just put random numbers into the various physics files.

But I digress. Didn't intend to derail the thread.

Amazing, glad to know I am not the only one here thinking exactly like you just exposed - guessing you are also an engineer

 

[fernandodasilva]

Any mention if the 2020 models will be added at some point of the development, since Toyota joined the series?

 

[FeltHat]

Any mention if the 2020 models will be added at some point of the development, since Toyota joined the series?

Reiza November 2019 Development Update

[ATTACH] Hello everyone, and welcome again for a new edition of our monthly Development Update! It´s hard to believe it´s already November! It was...

forum.reizastudios.com

 

[paracletus]

The first one is still great.

Will wait and see.

 

[R5th]

2020 could be a great year for sim racer. I've read rumours from a website about Project Cars 3 might be under development aswell.