Automobilista 2: The Big Interview (Part 2)

Paul Jeffrey

Premium
AMS 2 Interview 6.jpg

The second part of our big interview with Reiza Studios is now live! Read on here...

When the AMS 2 announcement dropped the community lit up with reaction and comments, plenty of which posed more questions that we had answers to at that point. In a bid to try and gather as much information on the upcoming sim as possible, we opened up the opportunity to put together questions for Renato from our community members - and you responded in fine style!

AMS 2 Interview - Part One HERE.

In Part 2 of our big Reiza interview, we throw down pretty much most of the community generated questions, and you can find the answers from the man in charge below...

RD: (question from @numbersevenhull) - AMS multiplayer had problems gaining traction other than for league use. How do you plan to address this... what are the plans for multiplayer (structured or lobby system), do they intend to integrate the PC2 safety and skill ratings, or expand upon them. Will the game offer any kind of stat tracking?

RS: I think multiplayer health fundamentally depends on having a large enough player base, as the online community is always going to be a percentage of that total. Our immediate focus is getting what we got right in AMS1, combining that with licensed content of broader appeal, and packing it with a more competitive presentation – that will boost the player base and multiplayer participation as a consequence. Once we have that we can focus on adding more multiplayer-specific features, although we do have some already planned and a few legacy systems we can also explore.

RD: (question from @numbersevenhull) - What areas of the game engine have you targeted resources towards improving and where do you feel they have been effective. Have you expanded the Reiza team and in what areas if any have you brought in new skills?

RS: We are about twice as big as we were at the end of AMS1 development and looking to hire more, as we intend AMS2 is a project that goes much further beyond v1.0.

We´ve hired a number of new artists as not only we have to produce new content at a quicker rate than before, we also have a lot of assets from AMS1 to bring over and upgrade for the new engine.

On the coding side we´ve been focusing on the low hanging fruits, ie mostly small adjustments that add good value, and making a few changes to bring some of the mechanics more towards what we had in AMS1, and soon we´ll start doing some work on the AI. We want to have a stable baseline with all these important things first before dabbing into more elaborate tasks, as that also gives us more time to get a better grasp on the engine.

RD: (question from @Gasper Zupan) – Do you plan to include the option to use old/used tires like in Automobilista 1? And limit the tire sets?

RS: Yes and yes.

AMS 2 Interview 3.jpg


RD: (Question from @Will Mazeo) – Will the new game have rejoin and full course yellows?

RS: It´s on our list, although we haven´t done any work on that front yet. So this probably lands on longer term features, ie post v1.0 release.

RD: (Question from @RobertR1) – We know MADNESS supports Oculus and HTC Vive natively, but what are your thoughts around the new Pixmax VR, and potentially other VR players entering or in the VR headset space?

RS: I think it´s great that a new generation of VR hardware is coming up, the 1st already offered a new level of immersion but still lacked the resolution to be really the game-changer it can be. We´re keeping an eye on what´s going on, but haven´t actually tried the new kits yet.

RD: (Question from @R1Joel) – Do you plan on supporting modding within the sim?

RS: We will try to give best support for users to share their customizations such as car skins, setups and custom championships.

For car and track mods you will be able to do as much as you can with PCars2, which is probably not a lot. It definitely won´t be a dedicated modding platform. There are several reasons why that is, the most obvious being the very architecture of the Madness engine does not lend itself to it.

That same architecture is actually important for us to protect our own content. Modding is fun, but seeing the car or track we poured our heart and soul into creating along with a considerable amount of our limited finances ported over to whatever the popular modding platform of choice is on the day, not so much.

Don´t get me wrong - modding platforms are great for sim racing, we were born from the modding scene as were many others of today’s elite developers. But we´re content creators first and foremost, and we need to protect that value. Besides, dedicating resources to creating a modding platform almost inevitably detracts from making and then keeping a well-rounded, consistent product which is what we aim to do.

Moreover, and because we´re content creators first and foremost, if there´s one thing we stand out on is the rate at which we can output good, consistent content at a fair enough fee. We also tend to keep a finger on the pulse of our user base so we know what most people want – if there´s enough interest in something we can try to deliver it ourselves over the shelf life of the sim.

With that said, there isn´t any measure being taken to prevent modding -if people manage to find their way around it to whatever extent, then by all means mod away.

RD: (Question from @Miguel Batista) - Will you be adopting the (MADNESS) SETA tyre model or develop your own?

RS: Yes we are using SETA.

AMS 2 Interview 2.jpg


RD: Regarding tyre model and physics, does the MADNESS engine deal include PCARS 2 physics, or is it a graphics only type of arrangement?

RS: We´re using the complete engine, which is not to say we can´t port some of the things we did in the old engine.

RD: Due to the sharing of engines, are we likely to see similarities to how PCARS behaves, or do you have the scope / appetite / freedom to develop something entirely in house within the staff and skills available at Reiza?

RS: We do have all the freedom to do with it whatever we want, so that´s not an issue. It´s a matter of what needs to be done. I can say that from the get-go it´s going to be a lot more similar to AMS1 than people are expecting. And to my perception, and also from some friends who have already tried it is that some of the cars already drive better than they did in AMS1.

RD: To get an even clearer and more direct answer…. !!! Is this new game going to be basically Automobilista physics and FFB but with more bells and whistles on and slight nuanced changes, are is it a case of using much of the PCARS model as a base, and moving forward your own way from that point?

RS: I think the previous answer already covers that.

RD: (Question from @Ghoults) - Will there be a career mode or is it more about online racing and single races against ai?

RS: There is one particular Expansion Pack within the AMS2 plan that should feature a career progression of sorts, so that´s one thing. We´ll certainly try to add more if we can make it more than a gimmick, but there´s no guarantee we´ll be able to for v1.0.

RD: (Question from @c172fccc) - Will the tire model interact with LiveTack 3.0 as it does in Project Cars 2? For example, will it interact with dirt on the track and the depth of the puddles?

RS: Yes.

RD: (Question from @GTSpeedster) - Will AMS2 have native triple screen support day one?

RS: Yes – basically for hardware support you can take for granted everything PCars 2 already offered.

AMS 2 Interview 4.jpg


RD: (Question from @Jan Mikuž) - How detailed, extensive will physical (visual) damage be?

RS: To begin with at least, the system will be similar to what you see in PCars2, which is not to say configured the same way.

RD: (Question from @FS7) – Going back to mod support for a second, is there any plans for tools to convert mods from AMS1 to AMS2?

RS: No.

RD: (Question from @tpw) – The graphic quality of the game engine is without doubt, but sims such as RaceRoom continue to lead the way in the audio side of things. What sort of limitations are present in this engine regards audio, and do you feel Reiza can lift the new title to a level above what has previously been possible with this engine?

RS: We believe strongly that audio design is crucial for a good sim racing experience, and we´re consistently looking into ways of making It better. We are using FMOD now and that is more advanced than what we had before, and we´re pouring a lot more resources into audio capturing from real cars, so it will be better than AMS1 both in terms of audio capabilities as well as sampling.

We have for example just recently captured this beauty:

How it will stack up against the other leading devs on this front will be up for users to judge, but you can at least be confident that audio design in general – not just engine sounds - is towards the top of priorities.

RD: (Question from @Kurupt CDN) - Do you plan to incorporate and build on the rallyX/stadium trucks that were in AMS?

RS: Yes – Rally / Dirt not in V1.0 though, most likely a separate dedicated Expansion Pack. Stadium Super Trucks we´d like to and are working on it.

AMS 2 Interview 5.jpg


RD: (Question from @Kurupt CDN) - Any plans on adding or renewing the live weather app license (that has apparently lapsed in PCARS 2)?

RS: Good question! I guess we´ll have to look into it. No plans but certainly open to consideration.

RD: (Question from @fernandodasilva) - Any possibility of having spotters in other languages than English?

RS: In Portuguese for sure, English yes. Others unlikely for v1.0 at least.

RD: (Question from @j_troc_71) - How will this game be different than Automobilista 1?

RS: Bigger, better and prettier with some key new features is a good way to sum it up, but the basic design is fundamentally similar.

RD: (Question from @Tar Heel) - Will the replay system be the same as it currently is in PC2 or will it be improved upon?

RS: We are working on it as we speak. We already considerably upgraded the LODding logic and sharpness settings from cameras so replays look much better.

RD: (Question from @Jason Mullin) - know this may be too early but... Considering the potential great graphics from madness and better physics from Reiza... do you know yet what might be the target PC requirements? For those of us with Mid-range PCs.

RS: If you run PCars2 well, you´ll probably find AMS2 running at least as well.

RD: (Question from @fireballr18) - Can Reiza use parts of their former modulations in AMS (e.g. turbo modellation)?

RS: Madness already has a turbo model that is at least as good as what we had, which was very functional but also very simple. We´re using the native model.

RD: (Question from @VernWozza) - As someone who craves realism I'm desperate for a sim so take damage seriously. Will they be implementing any kind of unique damage model?

RS: As before, it´s one area we´d like to offer more but there is a list of higher priorities things above it we need to focus on first.

AMS 2 Interview 1.jpg


RD: (Question from @mibrandt) - How much control do you have on the visual side of things? The weather looks very good in pc2 but honestly I think generally the visuals are kinda overdone - like too much bling. Are you aiming for a more photo realistic look if its in your control?

RS: We aim for realism in every front, but this tends to be a more subjective matter than it should be. Art wise our approach is the same, we do have full control of the rendering engine we have more and better artists now so the results should, and are already evidently better. As for the bling, I do believe you can switch off most it if it doesn´t please you.

RD: (Question from @ShredatorFIN) – antialiasing has come in for criticism in previous MADNESS based games – is this something on the ‘to-do’ list at Reiza for the new title?

RS: We´re looking into it.

RD: (Question from @peppepino) – Will Reiza be looking to make “AMS2 Release” a recognised reason to not attend work, and if so, can you supply signed doctors notes so we don’t get into trouble from our managers?

RS: We can try make It so good that you may develop some RSI from racing too much, although I wouldn´t recommend it!

RD: (Question from @Keith Windsor) Can we have some idea of any 'new' race options that are intended. i.e. I'm really hoping for one or two features that have been left out of most sims in the past - For example: options for ballast, ability to match player and AI tyre wear, designate pit windows for player and AI, mid-race saves for those with real life commitments, decent oval behaviour as well as road.

RS: Ballast is already supported, as is mandatory pitstops with pit windows. Matching AI and player tyre wear is impossible, unless you mean dynamically adjusting it to be the same wear of the player… Mid-race saves certainly on the good-to-have list. Oval racing not planned at this stage.

RD: Have you any plans to look at Laserscanning for future tracks, despite the obviously high quality of the circuits already released for AMS1?

RS: We will if we can and when it makes sense – we have already used laser scan data for some tracks in AMS1, but we´re not adopting it as development criteria. For one thing we do a lot of historical tracks, and there is no way to scan those; for another we have good modellers capable of creating highly accurate models even without laser scan data.

We find the sims that do adopt that criteria tend to only have the more accurate tracks for a limited period if at all, not least because race tracks are alive things often going through constant reforms and laser scan is just a snapshot of it at a certain time. As an example I´d cite Imola, of which there are 2 laser scanned versions in other sims but ours is overall more accurate because it´s constantly brought up to the latest modifications.

Which is not to say laser scan data isn´t an invaluable accuracy resource, and it´s perfectly possible for us to combine that with our current modelling philosophy – in the cases we can do just that we certainly will continue to.

RD: Wheel support… do you plan on offering pre-set controller profiles like is the case with rFactor 2 for example? Also on the same topic, less broadly used wheels like older models or the new direct drive range – will special attention be paid to these in order to get the maximum benefit from these peripherals within the sim?

RS: We already do that with AMS1, although it could be improved and expanded. PC2 has a lot of legacy profiles which we´ll go through in time.

RD: (Question from @Tormentor) – Do you plan on having a pit out lap to the starting grid? Can we start from pitlane? Can we have tow trucks in FCY and marshals waving flags around the tracks? Can we have red flags because of crashes, with race interruption or premature end of race? Can we have change in strategy arranged by the chief engineer because of changes in weather or strategy changes of other teams?

RS: A dynamic race engineer is an interesting idea. Flag marshals we´d like to have, not in yet. The others I think are all demand more than they offer in return.

RD: (Question from @Constantin Grimminger) - How many people are currently working at Reiza and how will the guys that work on the Donington/Snetterton DLC contribute to the AMS2 work flow? Any chance to give concrete numbers on how many content creators (3D, 2D), physics guys and PR people are currently at Reiza?

RS: Without getting into specifics, Reiza currently has 18 devs working on AMS2. There is no one handling PR beyond myself though – we probably should get someone better suited for it!

On the track front we currently have one team focused on bringing and updating the existing AMS1 tracks to the new engine and another creating new tracks – the latter is handling Donington and Snetterton also in AMS1.

Generally we´ve always been a pretty lean operation and our limited budget has always demanded we put absolute focus on the essentials of creating the product. If AMS2 delivers the way we expect, some fronts will probably demand more dedicated resources and we wil then look into expanding further as needed.

RD: (Question from @o Tiger Feet o) - Are there any plans to implement a form of neural AI?

RS: We haven´t got our sights set that way yet.

RD: (Question from @bgil66) - Will you have a manual in pdf format explaining all aspects of the sim?

RS: We already did that in AMS1, although limited. Will certainly push to have something more in-depth if we can find the time.

RD: (Question from @Stefan Mizzi) - What kind of Telemetry API (or APIs) shall we expect?

RS: For the time being, same as PCars2.

RD: (Question from @Stefan Mizzi) – WIll developers have access to beta versions (or some documentation/information) to integrate with their applications?

RS: There will most likely be a short open beta period for users and app devs alike.

RD: Well, that’s probably taken you an age to read and respond to everything, so once again a sincere thank you from the sim racing community for taking the time to discuss this with us today. One last thing, in the usual RD interview style, do you have anything extra you can add to this interview that you’ve not shared before – an RD exclusive to end the marathon of questions?

RS: Thank you RD for always being there for us and for sim racing in general, you guys provide an invaluable service for our little corner of the virtual world and it´s most appreciated.

We´re pretty excited about Automobilista 2 – this is really the endgame we´ve been working towards for several years now so there´s a special energy now that this is really it. I´m glad to share that with the guys who have stuck with us through thick and this over the years, and also all who have enjoyed what we do and now have something exciting too look forward to. Rest assured we´ll do our best to keep you all posted of our progress over the coming months.


For the latest Automobilista 2 news and discussions, head over to the AMS 2 sub forum here at RaceDepartment and get yourself involved in the conversation today!

Like what we do at RaceDepartment? Follow us on Social Media!



 
 
Last edited:
All these comments about low quality mods...I mean, I get it, with non-professionals of course most will be lacking, but when you get into the top 10% quality mods it makes it all worth it, so much more worth it.

Totally not a reason to dismiss modding. You're only hurting yourself.

Pro Tip: Sort RD Downloads by Rating or Downloads and skim the top. There are some amazing cars and tracks. RD's Paul Jeffery has reviewed numerous top quality tracks. Search Youtube for people like Jimmy Broadbent, Chris Haye or Simracing604, and they'll review top notch cars and tracks. Go get those.

Reiza technically never supported modding, they just happened to use a platform in ISIMotor that was built to allow it. Modders had to figure out quite a few things by themselves when they first started working on AMS, it was all done without any official support. It is just that now they decided to use an engine that is not built for modding and it's not like they had lots of other good choices.
 
@Renato Simioni , this is great news on the AMS2 release but a quick question that I don't think has been touched on, regardless of the view of PC2 which our club played many hours what is the idea for the multiplayer experience as PC2 'hybrid DS servers' were very unstable and caused mass disconnects which were put down to 'pirategate' but they are still unstable now.

Will running a dedicated server be a true DS in the sense of not Steam dependant and will we be able to I.P. connect as AMS 1, AMS 1 was very stable and rarely anyone disconnected, the reason I ask is we had to stop league races on PC2 because of the instability, will you be using your own flavour for this, thanks ;-)
 
Wowsa, Renato claims they should probably get someone more suitable for PR but I've rarely seen either PR or Developer tackle this kind of QA/AMA with such poise. Save yourself that cost mate, you're doing fine.

Surprised to read all the complaints about modding, AMS had the same official policy and that hasn't stopped us from enjoying that piece of software.

Looking forward to finally seeing Reizas top notch work in VR, probably one of the best Christmas presents of the year!

Edit: Actually the best Christmas would probably be the Copa Montana in VR, nudge nudge. ( I swear it feels like I'm the only person who loved that thing =( )
 
Last edited:
I just want to say that this (the last sentence, specifically) is not correct. I think you might me confusing depth of field with the bluriness of peripheral vision and/or focusing your vision on certain spot. The image in a headset is flat and the focusing distance of the lens is fixed, so there can be no "natural depth of field" effect - because everything you see is physically at the same distance from you.
I think this is another case of what's on paper is not how it happens in the real world. Yes, "on paper," the lense/monitor are of course a fixed distance but that doesn't mean what your eyes/brain are focusing on is.

I'm not confusing it with bluriness of peripheral vision nor focusing on a certain spot (which I think are the same thing). I'm talking about actual DOF. I'm not sure if it actually works the way you say. DOF in games tries to create a 3D effect. This is unnecessary when using true 3D/stereo vision (3D VR headsets, Nvidia 3D Vision, etc.). When I use 3D, my eyes are literally focusing on different distances. If I'm looking far-away, I have to re-focus my eyes to a closer distance to look at some thing close just like I would in real-life.

Lets say my monitor/lense is 25 inches from my eyes. When I have some thing from the game close to me - like popping out of my monitor like the steering wheel, switches on the steering wheel, etc. - I am literally looking at a closer distance than 25 inches. I might be looking at 18 inches. Then, if I move my real-life finger to the exact same depth of 18 inches, it looks to be exactly in-line (depth-wise) with the object from the video-game and both the object from the game and my real-life finger are perfectly in focus. Therefore, my eyes are truly focusing at the world 18 inches away from me, not 25 inches where my screen/lense is.

Have you and the person who agreed with your post ever tried 3D/stereo vision gaming? What I explained is very easy to notice.
 
  • Deleted member 13397

i don't understand people, which think, no VR, who cares, no modding, who needs this **** anyway.
Only because you don't care does not mean this is not interesting to others.

I never used VR, but it might be a cool thing, a never drove single sitters, until i found a great Formula Ford car (mod).

You should accept, that out there are people, who use AC more for creating cars/tracks then for hot lapping and there are crazy people who are creating car mods for Project Cars (and they may find a way to make it for AMS2). Are they the majority, surely not.

There are still people who are creating cars for "Racer" or AI driver for "Speed Dreams"
for some reasons.

I personally stuck to RACE07 for some reasons and even owing a copy of PC1/PC2/AC1 and AMS1, i wished, the points i am missing on my platform would be full field by AMS2.
And there are plenty of people who are still using GTR2 for there reasons.

Reiza is not the Santa Claus, who will full fill all our wishes.

We are living in a money driven world and the last big racing titles are PC2, ACC, FH4 & GTS.
So, the major part of people who buys racing sims doesn't care for mod support.
I have to accept this. But still, i can be disappointed, as i have my own preferences, why i am using R07.

p.s.: but its great that somebody from REIZA shows us, why they do it or why they don't. RESPECT
 
DOF in games tries to create a 3D effect.
That's not really true. It's a way to emphasize depth (which is not the same as creating a 3D effect) and direct your attention in an image, and also to separate foreground from background. And in its original media, it's sometimes not even intentional, it's just a side effect of how lenses work, and it's sometimes actively fought against in certain situations. And honestly, for the most part, games are creating DOF effects just because the developers think it makes them look more cinematic and cool (which it sometimes does, and sometimes it makes the game look ridiculous), there's no other real reason.

When I use 3D, my eyes are literally focusing on different distances.
They're quite literally not. You are forcing them to point to a certain object and it might create the illusion of "focusing" to it, perhaps even to the point where it makes your brain *think* you are focusing on that object (and perhaps even creating an illusion of an effect similar to depth of field), but your eyes are not actually refocusing. This is also one part of why using VR for longer time may be fatiguing - you're forcing your eyes to do things that are not natural for them. VR companies are in fact trying to come up with ways to make your eyes actually refocus for objects of different distance, because that would mean a noticeable improvement in the VR experience, both from the visual point and from the point of comfort of use.

Sorry for the OT, I won't drag this further.
 
Having the choice to enjoy mod's is great, and there are some I really like. On the other hand, there are many mod's that lack quality and professionalism, those I can do without. I don't have enough time to use the base content in most titles to the extent I'd like so quantity over quality of content is not something I want to promote either.

Even with the excellent choice of simulations we have today, very few cover the fundamental aspects of cars completely. For example, only iRacing and RaceRoom model the drive-train physics in a convincing way (very obvious with a motion-rig).

As many mods as there are for AC, is there one that can provide effective drive-train modeling(?) No, because such things have to be designed and implemented at the coding level deep inside the game physics engine. Very few game developers actually design for such features and yet, drive-train elasticity is a very fundamental aspect of most race cars.

Point being; providing even basic mod-support means making compromises (largely due to limited resources) in other areas of game development. Furthermore, things gets exponentially more complicated when developers have to design for advanced features while making mod'ing accessible. So in the end, we'll have some titles that are conducive to mod'ing, and others that are not but, the fact is all simulations contain compromises of one type or another.
 
Great interview, it's good to have some early insight from devs.
I like that they are using one of best in the business graphic engine, LiveTrack 3.0 etc. However, so far I'm not that enthusiastic about physics part (which I care about) , notably SETA tire model.
I know it's theoretically quite advanced and capable, but in general pCars2 handling at and over the limit is not that realistic(at least on tarmac) as in rFactor 2 or even AC.

As I understand Reiza has full access to Madness engine, can modify it as they want, so I was hoping Reiza/Neils will do their magic to improve the physics engine.
But from Renato replies it seems they won't do any major changes for now. It's obviously entirely different from gMotor2 and more complex so I assume they first need to understand how to work with it before making revolutionary improvements.

But I maybe will be positively surprised and all it needs is some tuning to SETA model and accurate cars' data to make realistic handling.
 
Last edited:
People often conflate tire “feel” or FFB with actual quality of tire physics but theyre not one and the same. Tag one of our tires from AMS1 to a car mod with wacky suspension physics and take it to some old converted track with low mesh resolution, and that same tire that felt so good will feel pretty lifeless.

This*

It's the reason PC 2 feels so inconsistent rather than uniformly bad or good. Whenever you have people raving about how good a sim feels (which both rF2 and PC 2 have) and then a bunch of other people raving about how bad the same sim feels, you know the problem is in inconsistent or poor quality implementation, not in the base engine/foundation.
 
It's a way to emphasize depth (which is not the same as creating a 3D effect) and direct your attention in an image, and also to separate foreground from background. And in its original media, it's sometimes not even intentional, it's just a side effect of how lenses work, and it's sometimes actively fought against in certain situations. And honestly, for the most part, games are creating DOF effects just because the developers think it makes them look more cinematic and cool (which it sometimes does, and sometimes it makes the game look ridiculous), there's no other real reason.
The two parts I bolded are in fact related to creating a 3D effect one way or another "emphasizing depth" and "separating foreground from background" are practically by definition related to helping create a sense of 3D-ness, a sense of depth.

I understand it's a side-effect of how real-life lenses work and that it also is implemented in games often for the cinematic/artistic effect. I hope it's an option to disable because I don't want a videogame telling me what to look at and what not to. Besides from an artistic and cinematic POV, I think DOF is completely a gimmick. I'm not watching a movie or television broadcast, I'm simulating being there myself therefore DOF from the game should not exist unless it's some how tied to my eyeballs (maybe DOF based on eye-tracking one day?).

They're quite literally not. You are forcing them to point to a certain object and it might create the illusion of "focusing" to it, perhaps even to the point where it makes your brain *think* you are focusing on that object (and perhaps even creating an illusion of an effect similar to depth of field), but your eyes are not actually refocusing. This is also one part of why using VR for longer time may be fatiguing - you're forcing your eyes to do things that are not natural for them. VR companies are in fact trying to come up with ways to make your eyes actually refocus for objects of different distance, because that would mean a noticeable improvement in the VR experience, both from the visual point and from the point of comfort of use.
Hmmm, maybe you're right scientifically but, unless my senses are lying to me (which could be the case but I don't feel like it), my eyes are always readjusting as I look further/closer just like when I take my 3D glasses off and re-adjust my eyes further/closer in the real world. Also, have had my real-life finger (and other objects) lined up at the same depth as in-game objects (objects that were converging out of the monitor) and, from what I remember, the real-life object and in-game object where both in-focus when I looked at either one because I lined them up to be the same depth.

I'm going to do that experiment again tonight to be sure because now you got me curious.

People often conflate tire “feel” or FFB with actual quality of tire physics but theyre not one and the same. Tag one of our tires from AMS1 to a car mod with wacky suspension physics and take it to some old converted track with low mesh resolution, and that same tire that felt so good will feel pretty lifeless.
Exactly. I've been saying this forever. So many people judge physics (vehicle dynamics and kinematics) based on FFB. They are not always one and the same and in many cases different. Some people even then use the "well this game's FFB is generated purely from the steering rack" argument as a reason to justify them judging physics by FFB. :rolleyes:

I've seen instances in games where physics are clearly wrong and as if from another planet but because the FFB may not feel any thing strange, or may even feel very good, people then don't even realize that the car is behaving unrealistically. Just look at the car and how ridiculous it's behaving/acting/reacting - nevermind the FFB, it's clouding your judgment - just observe the darn vehicle, lol.

Or some people will have bad opinions about a games' physics and then once they finally get good FFB settings, all of a sudden the game now has great physics, lol. Sure, the better FFB may make you feel and drive the car better and also therefore enjoy it more - I completely agree - but the physics have not changed.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty much convinced people think PCars2 physics and handling is bad because of the poor default ffb and some car setup(*) options.

Dial in the FFB and and fix a few car setup issues and it feels like a proper simulation. Could be improved but I believe it's doing the right things under the hood. And apparently so does Reiza.

*The unexpected, unrealistic over-rotation off-throttle, due to defaulting to aggressive Engine Braking (which you can modify), feels like steering assist which doesn't help first impressions.
 
*The unexpected, unrealistic over-rotation off-throttle, due to defaulting to aggressive Engine Braking (which you can modify), feels like steering assist which doesn't help first impressions.
Off-throttle and off-brakes, off-throttle while braking, or both? I know in the ISI/rFactor engine (including even rFactor 2), this is a phenomenon that's been around since even before rFactor 1. Cars are wayyy too prone to wanting to keep turning, some times even in a sharper and sharper radius (as if you're applying more and more steering lock) on both off-throttle with braking and no braking. The ISI engine (rFactor, rFactor 2, Automobilista, etc.) is the only physics engine where I have to A. use almost no front toe-out (AKA negative toe), B. use a ton of coast differential lock, and/or C. make my setup much more understeery than ideal because of this phenomenon.

I can drive cars with ridiculously slow steering ratios, I mean like a 1960s cadillac, yet have absolutely no problem getting the car turned into the corner due to this phenomenon. It doesn't matter if it's an F3 open-wheeler, a Nascar, a road-car. I'll never forget driving the Nascar in rFactor 2 where I was going around Indianapolis oval with pretty darn good laptimes while LITERALLY using like 20% the steering lock to get around the turns that real Nascar drivers use. On top of that, the steering ratio I used was even slower than the default. It's like the inertia wanting to make the car continue traveling forward suddenly disappears and the car turns in as if you added a bunch of steering lock. This is also very easy to experience in some thing like the AMS1 F3s or the karts.

I'm wondering if it's a coincidence that this is also a phenomenon in PC2 or if this is some deep-rooted behavior left-over from the ISI/rFactor engine they started with?
 
Last edited:
*The unexpected, unrealistic over-rotation off-throttle, due to defaulting to aggressive Engine Braking (which you can modify), feels like steering assist which doesn't help first impressions.

Agree with this 100%. I haven't played around too much with setups, but the engine braking alone threw me for a loop as cars would go crazy during down shifts. Completely bad first impression on so many fronts. AMS 2 will not have that problem I am sure.
 
People often conflate tire “feel” or FFB with actual quality of tire physics but theyre not one and the same.
That's true. For instance when I first tried AC v1.0 I was rather disappointed with handing on the limit. I thought it wasn't even in the same league as in rF2. It felt quite different, especially FFB.
I didn't feel overseer as in rF2 and was less likely to catch a slide. In rFactor2 it was more progressive and felt like tire model had more depth. Also didn't like pCars1's handling and it's snap-oversteer.

After that didn't play in AC (and especially pCars ) that much mostly for this reason. Then I tired AMS and it felt better than AC.

But after long time I've seen some opinions that AC has very good physics and has decent tire model, so decided to give it a fair try. This time tried to get better feel of FFB and focused on when cars started to lose traction, how to correctly respond.
While still different than in rF2 or AMS, I think overall handling is quite realistic in AC and now I've more appreciation for it's tire model and some aspects may be even better.

I still think rFactor 2 has not only better FFB, tire model, but also handling in general. New cars like Porsche 911 RSR GTE from Endurance Pack really show it's potential. rF2 is not that consistent, but many ISI/S397 cars on older tire model like Corvette C6R GT2, or Nissans GT1 and GT 500 have very good FFB and handling.
Anyway it shows FFB is still very important in a sim, because even with decent underlying physics it may put off many players. So hope AMS2 will have better and more consistent FFB than it's in PC2.
 

Latest News

Online or Offline racing?

  • 100% online racing

    Votes: 86 7.5%
  • 75% online 25% offline

    Votes: 122 10.6%
  • 50% online 50% offline

    Votes: 167 14.5%
  • 25% online 75% offline

    Votes: 321 27.9%
  • 100% offline racing

    Votes: 452 39.2%
  • Something else, explain in comment

    Votes: 4 0.3%
Back
Top