Vintage F1 cars too twitchy

[lenninon]

It's not just AMS2 but nearly all vintage F1 cars are setup by default to be way too unstable and twitchy at the rear. F1, F2 and F3 cars in the late 60s really were not that savage to control. Even with the most forgiving setup and benign differential settings the vintage single seaters are ridiculously unstable. Opposite lock is also very late at catching slides.

Yes, we know they don't have much downforce but why do developers exaggerate this twitchiness? If anyone can suggest a more stable set up I'm all ears.

 

[Velocita]

Tyre model and physics of AMS2 really aren't great and that's probably why they feel twitchy.

 

[ref 35]

Some of the old content sux balls, and only silly people think they aren't heavily exaggerated.
I'm frustrated by AMS2 so I reinstalled all my old simbin race07 content.

So many good cars that conform to basic reality, especially tyres, ie, AMS2 feels like kangaroo chassis physics plus Toyota camry spongy tyre physics.

I'm assuming you have extensive real life experience driving these cars then ?

Silly people ? What the hell are you talking about ?

You talk of throttle control, maybe you haven't got any, better stick to race 07 mate.

RF2 f1 sucks ? you're a real piece of work aren't you. Some of your comments are moronic, also your picture is really irritating.

 

[ref 35]

Tyre model and physics of AMS2 really aren't great and that's probably why they feel twitchy.

F**king hell, another one who must have real life experience of these cars.
I didn't know Racedepartment was full of such experts

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Thanks heaven we've finally got a real expert onboard. Sigh of relief.

 

[Velocita]

F**king hell, another one who must have real life experience of these cars.
I didn't know Racedepartment was full of such experts

Bruh, I don't need IRL experience in a vintage F1 car to know that the tyres feel off in a sim. Ffs, get a grip.

 

[Kenny Paton]

Dial it back guys, watch the language and keep the personal insults to yourselves.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Tyre model and physics of AMS2 really aren't great and that's probably why they feel twitchy.

I am not a fan of the Lotus 49 rendition in AMS2 either, when I feel like driving one, I do not use AMS2.
But I would not say it is because the tyre model and physic in AMS 2 are not good. Their is plenty of content in AMS2 that feels amazing.
It is more a case of developers choice or that they have not had a chance to revisit it yet to make it drives like it deserve. I am routing on the later because Reiza does so many cars right on both AMS1 and AMS2.
Look at what happened to the Camaro, from WTF to enjoyable.
The Formula Vee is pure joy to me as an example, challenging yet believable and enjoyable.
They need time and we need patience.

 

[Velocita]

I am not a fan of the Lotus 49 rendition in AMS2 either, when I feel like driving one, I do not use AMS2.
But I would not say it is because the tyre model and physic in AMS 2 are not good. Their is plenty of content in AMS2 that feels amazing.
It is more a case of developers choice or that they have not had a chance to revisit it yet to make it drives like it deserve. I am routing on the later because Reiza does so many cars right on both AMS1 and AMS2.
Look at what happened to the Camaro, from WTF to enjoyable.
The Formula Vee is pure joy to me as an example, challenging yet believable and enjoyable.
They need time and we need patience.

The Madness engine is just objectively worse than the engine AMS1 used. I've got faith in Reiza to improve the game but it's an uphill struggle and will take a while before everything is up to par.

 

[Cote Dazur]

The Madness engine is just objectively worse than the engine AMS1 used

Not sure what you imply by “objectively”, as it looks more like a subjective opinion to me.
The madness engine offers a lot more than the older rf1 engine, both in physic and graphic possibilities.

That one prefers how one SIM implementation of a particular engine feels is up to them but there is nothing objective about it.
The more complex the engine, the more difficult a cohesive implementation probably is.

Adding to that trying to simulate a large amount of very different content in a relatively short time while still learning a new engine will lead to uneven results.

It was to be expected, time will tell but that we already have some fine example of simulation within AMS2 bode well for the future.

 

[Velocita]

Not sure what you imply by “objectively”, as it looks more like a subjective opinion to me.
The madness engine offers a lot more than the older rf1 engine, both in physic and graphic possibilities.

That one prefers how one SIM implementation of a particular engine feels is up to them but there is nothing objective about it.
The more complex the engine, the more difficult a cohesive implementation probably is.

Adding to that trying to simulate a large amount of very different content in a relatively short time while still learning a new engine will lead to uneven results.

It was to be expected, time will tell but that we already have some fine example of simulation within AMS2 bode well for the future.

We'll see. It's not there atm but given enough time it might be.

 

[Richirichi007]

Thanks for replies so far. One post asks for "evidence". Well my evidence is that when I was quite young I drove f3 and f2 cars of that era and was offered a scholarship funded course at Brands Hatch on single seaters, but my parents put a stop to that! I got to know many seasoned drivers of that era and later drove F3 cars at Brands Hatch. They were based on the monocoques that were spin-off designs of the legendary Lotus 25 and later models.

I also got to know many prominent drivers who regularly won races in single seaters and their interpretation of tyre models and suspension set ups of that era were that they were NOT hard to drive.

There exists a complete myth that because late 60s cars had either no wings or not very efficient wings that equalled they were impossible to handle with any stability. This is complete nonsense. The current vintage F1 cars in AMS2 drive like they have loose steering arms and track rods. They squirm all over the place and even while dead straight (as one post above observes) inexplicably steer themselves sideways under even mild braking.

All this makes them utterly undriveable. Physics model designers are under the illusion that any single seat race car of the 1960s is inherently unstable. This is a complete misinterpretation and if I may say so, very lazy thinking. Their approach seems to be: "Ah well this car is from the 60s so I'll make it virtually impossible to control". This is utterly wrong.

Watch videos of Jim Clark and others in F1. They could not possibly have achieved the speeds and control they did with such ridiculously unstable machines.

It is a pity because in all other respects the vintage suite of single seaters in AMS2 are attractive and desirable, but with the current physics they are ludicrously uncontrollable.

I know this post is a little old, but I couldn’t agree more. If the cars really drove like this, then hardly anyone would have finished a race; they feel horrendous to drive. I know they had virtually zero downforce, & hence more throttle control was required; but in AMS2 it feels as if your driving on ice with these cars. The gen2 are obviously a little better; but still over exaggerated instability. Trying to get around Monaco; is an utter nightmare in gen1/2 cars; yes it should be difficult, no question, but it verges on the ridiculous.

 

[R8pilot]

Totally re-written response:

I decided to do some laps in the Lotus 49 again, and I take back my prior criticism. It's fine. Sure I still crash a little more often, but it only took me a few laps to become quite confident driving it, enjoying it along the way.