yep looking forward to seeing a vid of the merc making its way down the mountain!It's all thanks to @Stereo 's Joycam mod. Great fun flying the camera around watching your replays
The "What Are You Working On?" Thread
- Thread starter garyjpaterson
- Start date
yep looking forward to seeing a vid of the merc making its way down the mountain!It's all thanks to @Stereo 's Joycam mod. Great fun flying the camera around watching your replays
As promised a couple more pics of two of our other projects at Casual Sim Studios.
Cars we are currently working on:
1. 1937 Mercedes Benz W25 Streamliner
2. 1906 Renault Grand Prix
3. 1886 Benz Patent Motorwagen
Cars in early development (no guarantees):
1. 1972 McLaren M20 Can-Am
2. 1970 Autocoast TI-22 Can-Am
3. 1964 Mecom Hussein Mk1
4. 1930 Ford Model A
5. 1908 Mercedes Grand Prix
6. 1906 Itala 35/40
I'm curious on getting some feedback as we are planning on charging for the mods, but want it to be an amount that most users would find affordable. Right now we are thinking $2 per car but are also considering $1, and we would like to sell them through a reputable mod website, any recommendations? Does Racedepartment have the option to sell mods?
Future updates on our progress will be posted on my youtube channel:
Cars we are currently working on:
1. 1937 Mercedes Benz W25 Streamliner
2. 1906 Renault Grand Prix
3. 1886 Benz Patent Motorwagen
Cars in early development (no guarantees):
1. 1972 McLaren M20 Can-Am
2. 1970 Autocoast TI-22 Can-Am
3. 1964 Mecom Hussein Mk1
4. 1930 Ford Model A
5. 1908 Mercedes Grand Prix
6. 1906 Itala 35/40
I'm curious on getting some feedback as we are planning on charging for the mods, but want it to be an amount that most users would find affordable. Right now we are thinking $2 per car but are also considering $1, and we would like to sell them through a reputable mod website, any recommendations? Does Racedepartment have the option to sell mods?
Future updates on our progress will be posted on my youtube channel:
Attachments
Last edited:
Nice WIP shots.
I only speak for myself, but I don't think you'll see much difference in take-up between one or two dollars. You will have to accept that some people will find a way to get around it though. Also note that most of the legit firms selling cars. (eg RSS, VRC) don't use the trademarked brand names for their cars.
On a completely personal note, the stuff from pre-20s isn't my cup of tea, but the Hussein MkI interests me greatly ('60s sports and GT racers make up the bulk of my [fairly small] install) [edit: redacted because people took my comment way too seriously].
Just out of interest, how did you arrive at that list? Some of it is very niche!
I only speak for myself, but I don't think you'll see much difference in take-up between one or two dollars. You will have to accept that some people will find a way to get around it though. Also note that most of the legit firms selling cars. (eg RSS, VRC) don't use the trademarked brand names for their cars.
On a completely personal note, the stuff from pre-20s isn't my cup of tea, but the Hussein MkI interests me greatly ('60s sports and GT racers make up the bulk of my [fairly small] install) [edit: redacted because people took my comment way too seriously].
Just out of interest, how did you arrive at that list? Some of it is very niche!
Last edited:
@A Casual Sim Racer Thats absolutely fascinating list. I am sure yo uare aware that the older cars goes, the less people will find that interesting. However, Assetto Corsa seems to be central of cars enthusiasts with modding and huge variety of cars as other simulations keeps on closing on to very recent stuff, basically ignoring history, nevermind how rich and exciting it is. I wish you most luck, I am on the same boat, I find cars to be most interesting from early 30s all the way up to late 90s.
Absolutely. People like to think that those cars must have had no grip and have to be skating around everywhere. Thats surely untrue, those cars were fine, even though net grip was surely lower, and tires liked some more slip and on top of that aerodynamics weren't penalising yaw, pitch and roll angles as much as in downforce era, thus allowing cars to go further over the limits for longer. They still had relatively to sliding quite good static friction allowing them to drive "normally" fast, and there is lots of footage as proof, and even pictures also tell a lot. Old cars are surely full of wrong myths about them. Another unfortunate aspect is that when people drive huge downforce super high performance race cars for years, then jump into classics they perceive like if they would be driving too slow, and overdrive cars madly, just because they have no idea what is decent performance level of those cars, and also don't give ten minutes to adjust their perception to the differences...
Getting hard used to something plus faith instead of udnerstanding in simracing is biggest mistake, it is a source of baseless complaints, misjudgement and stagnation preventing of progress if it requires noticeable changes.
You'd be surprised how little "sideways or backwards only" many 60's racecars are.
Absolutely. People like to think that those cars must have had no grip and have to be skating around everywhere. Thats surely untrue, those cars were fine, even though net grip was surely lower, and tires liked some more slip and on top of that aerodynamics weren't penalising yaw, pitch and roll angles as much as in downforce era, thus allowing cars to go further over the limits for longer. They still had relatively to sliding quite good static friction allowing them to drive "normally" fast, and there is lots of footage as proof, and even pictures also tell a lot. Old cars are surely full of wrong myths about them. Another unfortunate aspect is that when people drive huge downforce super high performance race cars for years, then jump into classics they perceive like if they would be driving too slow, and overdrive cars madly, just because they have no idea what is decent performance level of those cars, and also don't give ten minutes to adjust their perception to the differences...
Getting hard used to something plus faith instead of udnerstanding in simracing is biggest mistake, it is a source of baseless complaints, misjudgement and stagnation preventing of progress if it requires noticeable changes.
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
My impression is generally that cars became more neutral going into the 80's than before, mainly due to better rear geometries allowing better front geometries.
Before, most cars were setup very safe and understeery, also from necessity to keep the steering forces manageable with the high scrub radii common for many suspension at the time, resulting in closer to zero or positive front camber in many designs. Low caster (due to needing low trail due to the high scrub radii) also didn't help the camber gain in corners.
It depends on the design though, some cars like the first RX-7 were quite peaky and neutral, but those kind of designs were considered atypical. There was not a sufficient elastokinematic lateral compliance understeer present and the roll centers were limited by packaging (Watts link had implementation issues) so the RX-7 ended up neutral. If they could have chosen, they'd have made it understeery, but there were some safety issues with locating a better roll center for the rear, and the front was probably packaging limited.
The 240Z on the other hand has a high front roll center, low rear roll center and not massive amounts of power, so it ends up quite understeery.
Some more specialized racecars were closer to a typical SLA setup you would see today, and have pretty similar dynamics to more modern racecars. Definitely not sliding around everywhere.
Some rear geometries like the standard swing-axle without camber compensator had very compromised roll center and camber behavior though, so they can be an exception, with very neutral transient handling. Spitfire comes to mind. Definitely not the norm.
Before, most cars were setup very safe and understeery, also from necessity to keep the steering forces manageable with the high scrub radii common for many suspension at the time, resulting in closer to zero or positive front camber in many designs. Low caster (due to needing low trail due to the high scrub radii) also didn't help the camber gain in corners.
It depends on the design though, some cars like the first RX-7 were quite peaky and neutral, but those kind of designs were considered atypical. There was not a sufficient elastokinematic lateral compliance understeer present and the roll centers were limited by packaging (Watts link had implementation issues) so the RX-7 ended up neutral. If they could have chosen, they'd have made it understeery, but there were some safety issues with locating a better roll center for the rear, and the front was probably packaging limited.
The 240Z on the other hand has a high front roll center, low rear roll center and not massive amounts of power, so it ends up quite understeery.
Some more specialized racecars were closer to a typical SLA setup you would see today, and have pretty similar dynamics to more modern racecars. Definitely not sliding around everywhere.
Some rear geometries like the standard swing-axle without camber compensator had very compromised roll center and camber behavior though, so they can be an exception, with very neutral transient handling. Spitfire comes to mind. Definitely not the norm.
All mods will be of as high a quality as possible. The Mercedes is nearing completion of the 3d model.
what program is used for modelling?
@Kyuubeey Thats very interesting subject. Of course it only makes sense to set-up cars optimally performing to be neutral, or to be understeery and less dangerous. I think there has always been neutrally setup cars through all times. Even if geometries were majorly benefiting rear end as you are saying. There still is aerodynamic lift balance that isn't necessarily forwards. There still is basic weight distribution. There still is easily adjustable suspension stiffness balance. There still is possibility to balance car by manipulating tire pressures, not to mention using different tire sizes. I would also suggest an idea that older cars may have benefited more understeery than usual setups because they had more power than grip comparing to more modern cars, so they needed more suspension movement at the rear. Although many 60s cars can be seen having been not to shy at frotn travel too, although more noticeably in pure front dive situations. While I have seen 50s-60s-70s cars havng neutral body roll and overal behaviour, there certainly were lots of cars that very visibly has stiffness bias significantly forward and lifting their inside front wheels significantly up above road surface... Some of those cars, though still handled relatively neutral in anger, such as for example 60s Porsche 911 which has been described by drivers either as oversteering monster and as understeering monster and with precise technique could have been steered almost solely with throttle, no front plow, no oversteer countersteering.... almost. I think many pre 60s cars also would have had demonstrated three wheelers, but they may not have had enough grip to get that much centripetal acceleration, also perhaps they were smaller cars and solid rear axles or de-dion tubes had an effect.
By the way, most more modern cars beginning from early 70s rapidly became stiffer, higher and sharper grip, less aero lift or even more downforce. All these things resulted in cars working at higher frequencies, which maybe itself promotes more neutral behaviour as it is harder to steer into a turn too fast, they just react faster. Also as much as I know, road cars, those which are driven by mere mortals, are all set to have rather low frequency, while engineers these days probably could build cars and tires that would work in a frequency that would be too high for Lewis Hamilton, lets see how F1 drivers will handle smaller sidewall tires lol.
By the way, most more modern cars beginning from early 70s rapidly became stiffer, higher and sharper grip, less aero lift or even more downforce. All these things resulted in cars working at higher frequencies, which maybe itself promotes more neutral behaviour as it is harder to steer into a turn too fast, they just react faster. Also as much as I know, road cars, those which are driven by mere mortals, are all set to have rather low frequency, while engineers these days probably could build cars and tires that would work in a frequency that would be too high for Lewis Hamilton, lets see how F1 drivers will handle smaller sidewall tires lol.
Ignore the bazooka in the background, that's for another car.
It's a bit hard to generalize 60s and earlier cars when you had weird suspension concepts like the Hillman Imp with front and rear swingarm suspension that prevented almost all bodyroll. Or the Auto Union Gary made that has 100% rear antiroll and cannot be tuned to be understeery. You can't really say they knew what they were doing when they have a tendency to roll the wrong way, tuck a rear tire under the engine and flip over.
Last edited:
Although I think my somewhat tongue in cheek comment about '60s cars has been taken somewhat out of the spirit I intended (my fault, clumsily worded), I am actually enjoying the follow up conversation, some very interesting reading.
Having said that, some more clumsy generalising coming up:
That window '63-'65 in which the Hussein raced was the era where the vogue in US road racing was getting a lightweight European chassis and bolting a huge American V8 in it. Yes Cooper made modifications but the T61 was never designed to work with a 7 litre Dodge engine.
There was a sea change in the cars used between those years, where you start with a lot of Cooper derivatives (King Cobras, Zerex Specials, the Hussein), go through the first attempts at bespoke cars adapted to work with them (eg McLaren M1A and Lotus 30) and end up with bespoke cars built around the concept (Chaparral 2A, Lola T70), with drivetrains and chassis capable of working with those motors. They also developed all sorts of splitters and louvres in that period to further improve roadholding.
So yes, I'm aware not everything in the era was driven in a perpetual drift (as much as anything it would have destroyed tyres) but when pushed to their limits for a qualifying hot lap they certainly could be as sideways as the driver wanted.
By the way, if anyone knows of any good source material or just info about the progression in sportscar and GT tyres in the mid '60s, I've been looking but really struggling to find much and would appreciate any tips.
Having said that, some more clumsy generalising coming up:
That window '63-'65 in which the Hussein raced was the era where the vogue in US road racing was getting a lightweight European chassis and bolting a huge American V8 in it. Yes Cooper made modifications but the T61 was never designed to work with a 7 litre Dodge engine.
There was a sea change in the cars used between those years, where you start with a lot of Cooper derivatives (King Cobras, Zerex Specials, the Hussein), go through the first attempts at bespoke cars adapted to work with them (eg McLaren M1A and Lotus 30) and end up with bespoke cars built around the concept (Chaparral 2A, Lola T70), with drivetrains and chassis capable of working with those motors. They also developed all sorts of splitters and louvres in that period to further improve roadholding.
So yes, I'm aware not everything in the era was driven in a perpetual drift (as much as anything it would have destroyed tyres) but when pushed to their limits for a qualifying hot lap they certainly could be as sideways as the driver wanted.
By the way, if anyone knows of any good source material or just info about the progression in sportscar and GT tyres in the mid '60s, I've been looking but really struggling to find much and would appreciate any tips.
Last edited:
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
In all of these things, it always depends. Like the first 911's all had a negative understeer gradient after some wheel turn angle, but the larger rear tire ones all understeered, despite being essentially the same car. So do 911's oversteer or understeer?
You and me, there is either incredibly well documented info with actual scientific testing results from old motoring magazines and research papers, or nothing at all. I wish there was a concise one singular resource for vehicular dynamics and tire history in general...
You and me, there is either incredibly well documented info with actual scientific testing results from old motoring magazines and research papers, or nothing at all. I wish there was a concise one singular resource for vehicular dynamics and tire history in general...
I just surely know that they kept on going wider. I also know that possibly first slick tire test was performed by Michelin and Alpine for 1967 Le Mans, and I know that drivers really disliked the tire, but with majorly improved laptimes the future was obvious. Drivers described that unlike with treaded tires where longest drifts often produced fastest laptimes, with slicks they had to avoid sliding to be fast. In my understanding that indicates that difference of static vs sliding friction was greater, plus probably little progression. Judging by how some seventies cars drove on slicks, they probably found some ofthat progression later to allow more sliding, but probably lost it again to "rails" type of performing, as we all know that how all modern cars are driven almost all the time.
@Kyuubeey No not nothing at all, scientific stuff and data is not everything. We need them to get to know well why exactly some things work the way they do, and more-so to get accurate. But we can do quite a lot already just by some basic data, principles, logic and most importantly - observation, which is simply best resource in understanding what the car actually does, it is simply visible how they work.
I have some cool read about early 911 test. Well it is from mid 70s, but I think it partially applies to earlier 911s. Surely it was mentioned that there was understeer, and oversteer, and that in general skills are required... Very interesting bit is at the end regarding the spoiler, and its effect for promoting understeer. Any understeer, however, can be excused by lack of power, and too greedy steering
www.caranddriver.com
I think it is so good that the idiotic lies of "Unsafe at any speed" that killed Corvair, didn't kill 911, which also used rear engine layout. Of course swing axle did some more bad for Corvair as Stereo has mentioned, I suppose having that car in mind. Amazing things sometimes happen in US lol Somehow all the suvs that might easily roll over with some wobble if tires get too much bite is not that bad somehow.
P.S. I have 60s 911s in the works, to me it - oversteers. But only if I don't turn in too much too early for how I naturally would as what I am used to, then it wonderfully understeers and I don't have to worry about oversteer (almost). I could remove rear ARB or/and soften rear springs and shocks, and then it would be more easier to understeer. Finally it is such a bliss once you find a balance between understeer and oversteer and get to rotate neutrally to make the turn. So I'd say the driver is an ultimate parameter of the setup, drivers skills, perception and expectations that also bias the impression. Of course excluding cars with extreme imbalances.
@Kyuubeey No not nothing at all, scientific stuff and data is not everything. We need them to get to know well why exactly some things work the way they do, and more-so to get accurate. But we can do quite a lot already just by some basic data, principles, logic and most importantly - observation, which is simply best resource in understanding what the car actually does, it is simply visible how they work.
I have some cool read about early 911 test. Well it is from mid 70s, but I think it partially applies to earlier 911s. Surely it was mentioned that there was understeer, and oversteer, and that in general skills are required... Very interesting bit is at the end regarding the spoiler, and its effect for promoting understeer. Any understeer, however, can be excused by lack of power, and too greedy steering
Tested: 1974 Porsche 911 vs. 911S Targa, 911S Carrera
From the Archive: Comparing the 911, 911S Targa, and 911S Carrera.
I think it is so good that the idiotic lies of "Unsafe at any speed" that killed Corvair, didn't kill 911, which also used rear engine layout. Of course swing axle did some more bad for Corvair as Stereo has mentioned, I suppose having that car in mind. Amazing things sometimes happen in US lol Somehow all the suvs that might easily roll over with some wobble if tires get too much bite is not that bad somehow.
P.S. I have 60s 911s in the works, to me it - oversteers. But only if I don't turn in too much too early for how I naturally would as what I am used to, then it wonderfully understeers and I don't have to worry about oversteer (almost). I could remove rear ARB or/and soften rear springs and shocks, and then it would be more easier to understeer. Finally it is such a bliss once you find a balance between understeer and oversteer and get to rotate neutrally to make the turn. So I'd say the driver is an ultimate parameter of the setup, drivers skills, perception and expectations that also bias the impression. Of course excluding cars with extreme imbalances.
Same story with the 912 I'm making, it has wider front than rear track, and oversteers in a way that takes a bit to get used to, cause it only gets to neutral/understeer with throttle. Fortunately it doesn't have enough power to go back into oversteer by overpowering the rear tires, so it's not an "oversteer in all situations" killer like the early 911R/Ts where you can't even use the steering wheel to find the cornering limit. You just have to do heavy braking in a straight line, and start accelerating before the very early apex.
Last edited:
I’m working on benz patent motorwagen too ahah but your model seems to be in a pretty advanced stage. Keep up the good work!
Time to change my next model for me instead
By the way, if you need some parts I completed the first half of the model and I can give it to you. So wheels, steering system, wood structures and seat are done.
Last edited:
AccAkut
Premium
Pretty nice model... but I can't shake the impression of this being the result of giving an 8 year old the task of making the R8 "more badass"
(I know its just how Audi build it). I still prefer the original '06 R8 shape.
Latest News
-
Gran Turismo 7’s Update 1.46 Includes Škoda’s Vision GTAn electric concept marks Škoda’s debut within Gran Turismo, and it will be joined by Honda’s...- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
F1 Manager 2024’s New Mentality System, Pitbox Order DetailedAlongside being able to create a custom team, drivers can now be poached, races can be simulated...
- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 2 min read
-
How The BTCC and Motorsport Games ReunitedIn a surprise move last week, official BTCC content will once again be present within rFactor 2...
- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 5 min read
-
Sponsored MOZA Racing & Lamborghini Redefine Racing Boundaries with The Real Race Super Trofeo 2024MOZA Racing proudly announces its collaboration with Lamborghini for the launch of The Real Race...- OverTake.gg
- Updated:
- 6 min read
-
Forza Horizon 5 Apex Allstars Update Adds Five New Race Cars, Plus Yet More DLCA new Apex Allstars Festival Playlist kicks off this Thursday in Forza Horizon 5, joined by a...
- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
F1 24's Updated Car Performance and Handling ExplainedWhile we haven’t tested it yet, on paper it sounds like significant changes have been made to...
- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
Tim Jarschel Wins 2024 DTM Esports Pro championshipCombining searing pace with consistency, Jarschel took home the title despite a charge from...
- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 3 min read