Upcoming Events

Weekly BMW races on Simracing.GP Other regular AC events on Simracing.GP Weekly GT3 Sprint Races on Simracing.GP Rookie friendly WTCR sereis Weekly rFactor 2 events

Jimmy's not wrong, but he's not right either

Shovas

Premium
Messages
1,527
Points
2,102
You may have noticed a flurry of positive videos about AMS2's latest release, Racin' USA. Well, Jimmy Broadbent noticed and put up a short video about it and his opinions on the latest Racin' USA improvements. Jimmy has such a large audience that his opinion will attract by far the most attention of sim racers, outside of a small subset who know what other channels to watch.

Now, he's not exactly wrong, but he's not exactly right, either. He's probably absolutely right about some of the behaviour of cars over kerbs, or a generally bouncy ride, or the feel of skipping over the road surface as opposed to rolling over it, and perhaps other things.

But when Jimmy contrasts the physics, ffb, handling, and driving experience to titles like iRacing and ACC, I have to question whether he's coming at this objectively and whether he's put in enough time with AMS2 (he admits he has put little time into AMS2).

iRacing's nickname, iceRacing, is well-earned, to this day, even though it's on a physical tyre model. How Jimmy talks about being "connected to the road" in iRacing blows my mind. ACC still exhibits awkward lumbering slides and tyres that feel on edge all the time with little threshold to play.

Yes, AMS2 can and must improve in some areas to really nail the experience, but I feel opinions on what's "realistic" in sims is missing the point, and we really should all know this by now...

Because all sims are pretty bad if you compare to real life driving. If we're honest, they're almost nothing alike, we're just interpreting one mode to another. In fact, when it comes down to "realistic" physics, ffb, and handling...

I suggest a term like "intuitive" is better than "accurate", "simulation", "simcade", or "arcade" to describe the way we interpret sim handling.

For me, rF2 with its rubber grip catching and releasing, is the most intuitive I've felt in any sim, followed by AMS2, no surprise because they're both using physical tyre models. ACC follows after which, for having an empirical tyre model, is actually really good, you can feel a bit more in ACC than other empirical tyre model sims. iRacing follows somewhere after and its hit or miss depending on the car.

What do you guys think? Do we even have an objective way of talking about sim handling? Has Jimmy put in enough time on AMS2 to be objective given he's put in hundreds or thousands of hours on iR/ACC?

Here's Jimmy's video and a response from Ermin Hamidovic:


 
Last edited:
Messages
107
Points
212
Renato's jobs is to protect his title, it reminds me of KS video regard how chassis flex was just a gimmick since no developer actually had real data... (in turn trying to discredit other sims since ACC didn't have it)... and voila a few months later ACC was proudly announcing chassis flex as if it was the greatest thing ever. Every dev does that, including S397 and iRacing.
 
Messages
689
Points
951
Wow, so much hate hate.

The guy got banned from the Reiza forums for stalking people and writing long walls of irrelevant text in every thread. So obviously now he is here to farm easy likes from the ACC fanboys.

It’s a sad fact of racing sim forums that everyone’s opinion is valid unless/until it’s critical. Then, suddenly, they either don’t know what they’re talking about or they’re a fanboy for another sim! In the end it’s just an opinion, a personal view and no less valid than anyone else’s. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it hateful.

I have my own opinions about AMS2 - I agree with some of the comments posted by @reshaderacer and disagree with others. There are a number of areas of AMS2 that people praise highly and when I read about them I think they must be talking about a different sim. The fact that my experience may be different to theirs could be influenced by any number of factors. We don’t all use the same hardware with the same settings and what we “feel” is very subjective anyway. If you think that AMS2 is the best sim, then enjoy it and don’t worry about what other people say. Their comments are not going to suddenly make it worse for you.
 
Last edited:
Messages
77
Points
57
The whole battle of sims is so silly. For example, you can call AMS2 simcade all you want, but I'm willing to bet that the aliens in AMS2 could hop into whatever sim the person calling it a simcade thinks is most realistic and absolutely destroy that person, or at the very worst, give them a run for their money.
The term simcade is fairly silly in general. Is AC a simcade because it doesn't have chassis flex or only has a single point contact tire model? Is Rfactor 2 a simcade because road temp is locked at 25 degrees no matter what you set it at? Or the fact that you can always run the softest compound at the minimum tire pressure and crazy soft springs? Or the fact that puddles on the road don't actually do anything? Or is iracing simcade because it doesn't simulate rain, or has a tire model that even top level real life racers say is wildly unrealistic?

Most of the sims out there at least have a lot of the driving basics, and although they aren't the same in each sim, things like trail-braking and other techniques can be used in all sims. It seems to hurt peoples feelings when you list the shortcomings of that persons favorite sim because it seems to be interpreted as "You are a lesser driver because you drive X game and it is simcade"
 
Last edited:

Andrew_WOT

Premium
Messages
5,661
Points
7,042
While arcade vs others boundary is more clearly defined, simcade with sim designators are not and depend mostly on who you ask, it's more like a slope, not a step, that goes from one side of the spectrum to the other as level of the simulation complexity increases.

Pretty sure if AMS2 existed in isolation everyone would over the moon praising it's high simulation value, but lots of people have other points of reference and inevitably compare it to other sims, and not always in AMS2 favor.
 
Last edited:
Messages
814
Points
1,052
While arcade vs others boundary is more clearly defined, simcade with sim designators are not and depend mostly on who you ask, it's more like a slope, not a step, that goes from one side of the spectrum to the other as level of the simulation complexity increases.

Pretty sure if AMS2 existed in isolation everyone would over the moon praising it's high simulation value, but lots of people have other points of reference and inevitably compare it to other sims, and not always in AMS2 favor.
I for instance, look at ACC and RF2 from an AMS2 and I find ACC is lacking in a lot of the driving and physics side of it. The tires in AMS2 behave much more like tires than in ACC and I can feel the limit of the car much better in AMS2.. I find those 2 lacking
 

Johnr777

Premium
Messages
1,100
Points
2,002
The whole battle of sims is so silly. For example, you can call AMS2 simcade all you want, but I'm willing to bet that the aliens in AMS2 could hop into whatever sim the person calling it a simcade thinks is most realistic and absolutely destroy that person, or at the very worst, give them a run for their money.
The term simcade is fairly silly in general. Is AC a simcade because it doesn't have chassis flex or only has a single point contact tire model? Is Rfactor 2 a simcade because road temp is locked at 25 degrees no matter what you set it at? Or the fact that you can always run the softest compound at the minimum tire pressure and crazy soft springs? Or the fact that puddles on the road don't actually do anything? Or is iracing simcade because it doesn't simulate rain, or has a tire model that even top level real life racers say is wildly unrealistic?

Most of the sims out there at least have a lot of the driving basics, and although they aren't the same in each sim, things like trail-braking and other techniques can be used in all sims. It seems to hurt peoples feelings when you list the shortcomings of that persons favorite sim because it seems to be interpreted as "You are a lesser driver because you drive X game and it is simcade"
Sure, you can defend your favorite game, downvote bad or inaccurate youtube reviews and even compare features all you want.

But if we are strictly talking about the term 'simulation', then IMO, the label should go to games that have proven they can provide a proper simulation to the people that actually need them -> racing teams and drivers.

From my experience in dealing with proper racing teams and drivers these last few years, the game in their simulators is always Assetto Corsa.

But mind you... we are talking about third party content here. IMO, the accuracy of stock AC content is very questionable.
--------------------------------
I do enjoy racing in AMS2, but I do take it for what it is, and set my expectations accordingly.
 
Last edited:

Shovas

Premium
Messages
1,527
Points
2,102
Sure, you can defend your favorite game, downvote bad or inaccurate youtube reviews and even compare features all you want.

But if we are strictly talking about the term 'simulation', then IMO, the label should go to games that have proven they can provide a proper simulation to the people that actually need them -> racing teams and drivers.

From my experience in dealing with proper racing teams and drivers these last few years, the game in their simulators is always Assetto Corsa.

But mind you... we are talking about third party content here. IMO, the accuracy of stock AC content is very questionable.
--------------------------------
I do enjoy racing in AMS2, but I do take it for what it is, and set my expectations accordingly.
I was under the impression the serious teams were using rFactor? Even rF1/rF Pro up until a few years ago. I almost laughed when you said AC because it has so many known physics limitations (eg. NeilsH or maybe it was Kunos themselves talked about its aero limitations indepth way back). I could be very wrong about what teams use but AC? Really?

Now, even if they use a supposed 'real simulation' like rFactor I've also heard it can really only prepare them to learn the track and how to take the corners. It's not like real life at all. I've gotten this impression even about multi-million dollar full scale model rig setups by the likes of Red Bull and BMW.

I suggest we have to recognize the limitations in every single sim and categorize them based on intent: iR/rF2/AMS2/AC/ACC are all "intended" to be simulations. It's clear some games like GT/Forza/PC3 are intended to be arcade/simcade. I think that's all you can really objectively say.

The next step is deciding who is closer to real life. That gets complicated quick because one sim might have aero nailed and fail on the tyre model, while another gets the tyre model right and fails on physics, while another gets setups right and fails in yet another area. And you have to make these judgments for ever-changing sims.

Every single sim fails in some way but that doesn't mean they aren't intended to be or that they are incapable of being simulations with the right improvements.
 
Messages
814
Points
1,052
I was under the impression the serious teams were using rFactor? Even rF1/rF Pro up until a few years ago. I almost laughed when you said AC because it has so many known physics limitations (eg. NeilsH or maybe it was Kunos themselves talked about its aero limitations indepth way back). I could be very wrong about what teams use but AC? Really?

Now, even if they use a supposed 'real simulation' like rFactor I've also heard it can really only prepare them to learn the track and how to take the corners. It's not like real life at all. I've gotten this impression even about multi-million dollar full scale model rig setups by the likes of Red Bull and BMW.

I suggest we have to recognize the limitations in every single sim and categorize them based on intent: iR/rF2/AMS2/AC/ACC are all "intended" to be simulations. It's clear some games like GT/Forza/PC3 are intended to be arcade/simcade. I think that's all you can really objectively say.

The next step is deciding who is closer to real life. That gets complicated quick because one sim might have aero nailed and fail on the tyre model, while another gets the tyre model right and fails on physics, while another gets setups right and fails in yet another area. And you have to make these judgments for ever-changing sims.

Every single sim fails in some way but that doesn't mean they aren't intended to be or that they are incapable of being simulations with the right improvements.
Exactly. Most teams use rFactor pro with straight up scalar tire models iirc. But that is also because it is what they have been using and there would be a considerable cost to redevelop another sim to do what they want. Maybe something like Madness engine or AC engine would be able to be tailored to resemble reality a bit more but how much more for what they want? 5%, 10% more? Is it even useful. They probably have the operational envelope of the car dialed down to a T and maybe there are certain out of normal scenarios where the car doesn't behave as expected but if it is a 1 in a million thing, is it even worth it? What is the point of having an engine do these impressive calculations for the air flow on the undergrad of the car if with a few numbers you can easily change you can get the same effect?

These conversations always get down to "my sim is has a bigger penis than your sim" kind of debate which is a shame. I think the original topic of the thread is interesting and it talks of a bit more than "this SIM is better than that" as it also approaches the weight influencers have and why our confirmation bias is something that needs to be taken into account. In the end, we are a bunch of nerds talking to the clouds really.
 

Johnr777

Premium
Messages
1,100
Points
2,002
I was under the impression the serious teams were using rFactor? Even rF1/rF Pro up until a few years ago. I almost laughed when you said AC because it has so many known physics limitations (eg. NeilsH or maybe it was Kunos themselves talked about its aero limitations indepth way back). I could be very wrong about what teams use but AC? Really?

Now, even if they use a supposed 'real simulation' like rFactor I've also heard it can really only prepare them to learn the track and how to take the corners. It's not like real life at all. I've gotten this impression even about multi-million dollar full scale model rig setups by the likes of Red Bull and BMW.

I suggest we have to recognize the limitations in every single sim and categorize them based on intent: iR/rF2/AMS2/AC/ACC are all "intended" to be simulations. It's clear some games like GT/Forza/PC3 are intended to be arcade/simcade. I think that's all you can really objectively say.

The next step is deciding who is closer to real life. That gets complicated quick because one sim might have aero nailed and fail on the tyre model, while another gets the tyre model right and fails on physics, while another gets setups right and fails in yet another area. And you have to make these judgments for ever-changing sims.

Every single sim fails in some way but that doesn't mean they aren't intended to be or that they are incapable of being simulations with the right improvements.
I know of another team with a simulation program that switched from rF Pro to AC about a year ago. Mainly because of the extended physics options that are now available.

AC in its stock form is indeed limited, but with the modifications available, whole new world.

IER's P13C for example, utilizes these extended physics and is considered the most accurate simulation of any car ever brought to a game.

------------------------------------

Again, this is my opinion, and not a true apples to apples comparison since im talking about a modified version of AC.
 

Shovas

Premium
Messages
1,527
Points
2,102
IER's P13C for example, utilizes these extended physics and is considered the most accurate simulation of any car ever brought to a game.
Good point, I did have that car in the back of my mind but I wasn't sure teams were going to those lengths in AC to get the physics to where I figured they'd want them.
 
Messages
312
Points
492
If anyone ever gets confused between a simulation and a game just remember this;

Simulations produce numbers and games produce experiences .

It really helps to make all the inter game squabbling look hilarious. Stick with the games you like and if someone else doesn't like it as much it's not your problem or theirs, it's only an opinion.
 
Messages
384
Points
467
I know of another team with a simulation program that switched from rF Pro to AC about a year ago. Mainly because of the extended physics options that are now available.

AC in its stock form is indeed limited, but with the modifications available, whole new world.

IER's P13C for example, utilizes these extended physics and is considered the most accurate simulation of any car ever brought to a game
I wonder if AC1 has become what FSX had become to the flight sim world: an extremely limited and dated physics experience by default, but modders/developers can calculate some physics outside of the game.
 
Last edited:
Messages
144
Points
192
AMS2 is my favorite sim, but not because I've made a detailed assessment of its physics, etc., in comparison to other games. I like it because the tire feel is excellent and because it's amongst the most visually pleasing, at least on the track (Nurburgring) that I practice on.

But what I think is silly about these comparisons is that sim racing is not remotely, not even on the same planet, like actually driving a race car, or any car. It may be "accurate" in certain ways such as lap times, but you can add as much immersive elements as you like: VR, motion, wind, etc., and it's still nothing at all like actually driving.

If Plato drove a sim and made such arguments, he might have said "the shadows on my cave's wall reflect the reality of driving better than the shadows on your cave's wall."
 

Johnr777

Premium
Messages
1,100
Points
2,002
I wonder if AC1 has become what FSX had become to the flight sim world: an extremely limited and dated physics experience by default, but modders/developers can calculate some physics outside of the game.
Good comparison, fellow Brazilian

Yeah, AC1 is a good “sandbox” but like FSX, it’s showing it’s age
 
Messages
814
Points
1,052
If Plato drove a sim and made such arguments, he might have said "the shadows on my cave's wall reflect the reality of driving better than the shadows on your cave's wall."
Diogenes enters the room with a sim rig: Behold, a car!

I also feel that AMS2 tires feel the most like the real deal. I feel the cars doing stuff that I felt url being a stupid teenager and crashing my car a few times (or just driving over the limit).
 
Messages
353
Points
427
Diogenes enters the room with a sim rig: Behold, a car!

I also feel that AMS2 tires feel the most like the real deal. I feel the cars doing stuff that I felt url being a stupid teenager and crashing my car a few times (or just driving over the limit).

Yeah, I also like AC a lot but I agree that when driving AMS2 I really DO feel connected as a racing experience with the vehicles - the best IMO.

But like I said in the other post, I still think the brakes need working on, or maybe it's the road surfaces how they have them configured, dunno, either way I think AMS2 is the future of sim' racing even though atm some wouldn't agree with that. What else is on offer on PC really. AC really great, really great modders, but getting on a tad; ACC GT3 only; RF2 should be dead and buried once and for all (hate it); raceroom online only and getting on a bit also and PC3, well, gawd knows what they were thinking. So yes, I think Reiza can see the bigger picture and will keep on dodging the flak and the end result should be perfecto! *fingers crossed*
 
Last edited:
Messages
154
Points
302
Amazing this poll is exactly 50/50 right now and in an AMS2 forum to boot
You are entitled to say as you please, but having thought about it further, the guy was 100% right. Sure, he might be making an opinion himself, but its not like he was saying a lie; thus he is 100% right. Its not like those things can be refuted.

Yeah, I also like AC a lot but I agree that when driving AMS2 I really DO feel connected as a racing experience with the vehicles - the best IMO.

But like I said in the other post, I still think the brakes need working on, or maybe it's the road surfaces how they have them configured, dunno, either way I think AMS2 is the future of sim' racing even though atm some wouldn't agree with that. What else is on offer on PC really. AC really great, really great modders, but getting on a tad; ACC GT3 only; RF2 should be dead and buried once and for all (hate it); raceroom online only and getting on a bit also and PC3, well, gawd knows what they were thinking. So yes, I think Reiza can see the bigger picture and will keep on dodging the flak and the end result should be perfecto! *fingers crossed*

Yes, fingers crossed, but you paid 100 or so for the game, local currency, which is no small chunk of change. Unfortunately the cars are not really connected in AMS2, or its overdone what little it can do. In ACC they by comparison seem to under-connect you, but the truth is, its done on purpose and is more close to a steering wheel than in AMS2 (which I take the point is less vague) - whereas in AMS2 they don't have any hope of doing any thing other than a project cars2 thing. ACC is actually more how it would be but the truth is Raceroom is probably better still as a game as it loads up way better than in ACC; though I think you will find for GT3's drive any rear wheel driven front engine'd car - its not as 'connected' as you may believe.

^> While there is indeed rolling resistance, thats what AC is showing you, how those wheels 'roll' over something. In AMS2 its doing all kinds of bizzare things. Raceroom is the sweet spot and actually now has no nonsense whatsoever.

The AMS2 driving is closer to a codemasters game, like dirt or something. Its not really that good, and if it actually did have a quality driving experience then more people would play it - thus when someone says this, it may sound trite I don't know - but they lack the perspective. So your words do not align with the reality, and thats ok its your opinion, but the truth is, AMS2 is really not all that good. I understand you're doing your best to talk it up and you do like it, thats fine, but its a long way off from the title that was promised. It probably won't become such a title, even their steam store page description has changed. That must tell you a lot. It changed around the same time J Broadbent made his claims. I had made mine, and the world of AMS2 turned on its head.

Where they go to after this, with content, is an unknown. I do not think its going to get better. Race room has 1600 players at peak, and ACC about 2k. AC has about 8k, and both load up and have better physics than AMS2. When I say perspective, I trust you have played all the titles?
 
Last edited:
Messages
353
Points
427
That's your IMO and being opposite of mine is fair enough. I tried ACC this weekend via a friend share on steam and yes it drives well but out of the box with dialed down settings it doesn't run nor look very nice on my triples. I also think SOL Assetto 1 looks nicer tbh - I was quite surprised how ACC looked tbh. Of course graphics aren't everything but it certainly adds to the immersion and can make people better drivers IMO if it looks closer to reality.

If we're comparing the GT3 cars driving standard from Assetto to AMS2 then I think AMS2 is arguably on par with ACC but looks nicer and runs smoothly. If anything I think ACC GT3 cars feel a tad too safe and predictable if you're trying to emulate realism; in that sense GT3 in AMS2 could be considered a more realistic experience as you get more of that edge of your seat experience that you would in real life racing. Maybe GT3 in ACC is the great pretender whereas GT3 in AMS2 is like "There you go son - these beasts are fast and dangerous and if you drive them like your family run around and make one big mistake you may end up in A&E". I like that feeling of being on the edge - dont be fooled, being a passenger in a GT3 car that is being raced is a slightly brutal yet exhilarating experience to the body. I think when it comes to simulation Reiza have done a good job with the GT3 cars.

Admittedly, the odd vehicle in AMS2 still feel a bit off and with some of them you'll spin and I'll think to myself I just dont get that - but 12 months ago I thought the Formula 1 cars were undriveable and now it's the total opposite. Anyhoo, my overall point is AMS2 is continously improving with the odd set back here and there, and aside from Assetto Corsa 1, all the other sims suffer their own "major" handicap in one way or another and YES, I own nearly every racing sim' that has ever been created in the last 30 years.
 
Last edited:
Top