Jump to content
DIRT 5 - Chat about the game and get support here. Read more... ×

So, How much of a Simulator is DR2.0...? Interesting old interview

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

So, this is a topic that fascinates me, despite not knowing a thing about coding or physics.

What do we think is the extent to which DR2.0 is a simulator?

There's a great interview here with Eero Piitulainen, the physics guy who made Richard Burns Rally such a deep simulation for its time, regarding loose surface modelling:

https://issuu.com/autosimsportmediallc/docs/autosimsport_magazine_volume5issue3_r1/103

And some interesting comments on a thread on Racedepartment, though the extent to which RBR actually simulated all the things mentioned is challenged further down that thread.

https://www.racedepartment.com/threads/is-dirt-rally-close-to-rbrs-physics-ffb-now.108124/page-11

Regarding DR2.0, it looks to me like the car's overall physics in its interaction with the surrounds has great integrity, that is to say, its inertia, momentum and collision physics. But does it then come down to the extent to which the engine, drivetrain and tyre surfaces are operating as a simulation, rather than reacting to inputs via look-up tables? I have no clue. Interested to hear people's thoughts here.

I haven't played RBR for a long time, but DR2.0 feels more 'high resolution' and significantly more sophisticated in its handling (based on memory). But then again, I'm playing with a controller not a wheel.

I haven't a clue what the most realistic racing simulator is out there currently, perhaps Rfactor or Assetto? But what little of rally mods I've seen on youtube for these simulators look rather primitive, at least graphically. I wonder how DR2.0 stacks up against those, and not just on tarmac but on gravel.

 

Edited by Jake Cushing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

I haven't played RBR for a long time, but DR2.0 feels more 'high resolution' and significantly more sophisticated in its handling (based on memory). But then again, I'm playing with a controller not a wheel.

I decided to go back to the past a few weeks ago and booted RBR (vanilla) and yeah, the gravel physics feel dated and simplified compared to DR2. However, tarmac still feels really good in RBR.

The most realistics racing sims are assetto and iracing to my knowledge (haven't played the latter). Vanilla Assetto is tarmac only and it beats all sims I played in this respect. When it comes to gravel/tarmac mix, I love how Project Cars 2 rallycross handles. I wish there were rally stages in this game. Feels much more realistic than DR2, assuming you got your wheel and ffb settings right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, danielofifi said:

I decided to go back to the past a few weeks ago and booted RBR (vanilla) and yeah, the gravel physics feel dated and simplified compared to DR2. However, tarmac still feels really good in RBR.

The most realistics racing sims are assetto and iracing to my knowledge (haven't played the latter). Vanilla Assetto is tarmac only and it beats all sims I played in this respect. When it comes to gravel/tarmac mix, I love how Project Cars 2 rallycross handles. I wish there were rally stages in this game. Feels much more realistic than DR2, assuming you got your wheel and ffb settings right.

No love for rF2... 😁

Honestly not many of us actually know what an actual simulator feels like, as they tend to not be sold for us. One of the most used simulators in racing and etc. seems to be rFpro and we have no way to even try what it feels like etc.

The feeling of realism also depends on the content, so the actual code could be imitating real life as closely as possible for a piece of software that should run on potatoes. It could just be that the other parts of the game, such as handling/tire models are not as realistic.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of us has driven in real, so we can only make a rough estimate and compare it with other games. I would be happy if the asphalt physics were more in the direction of Asseto Corsa, because I find it realistic.
Differentials don't do enough and bump and rebound are also bad for me, just slowing down but not absorbing forces.

 

Otherwise, it would be very interesting to see what real independent rally drivers would say.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, danielofifi said:

When it comes to gravel/tarmac mix, I love how Project Cars 2 rallycross handles.

Well, given all their base now belong to Codemasters, the next Dirt game should be an interesting progression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, UP100 said:

No love for rF2... 😁

Honestly not many of us actually know what an actual simulator feels like, as they tend to not be sold for us. One of the most used simulators in racing and etc. seems to be rFpro and we have no way to even try what it feels like etc.

The feeling of realism also depends on the content, so the actual code could be imitating real life as closely as possible for a piece of software that should run on potatoes. It could just be that the other parts of the game, such as handling/tire models are not as realistic.

If iRacing marketing is to believed THE most accurate sim is iRacing, including terrible tire models and all. There was a point where you could get faster lap times on cold tires, and they also warmed up inside out.

But as someone else keeps arguing, every racing game is simulating physics in some manner. Personally, I think for "low speed" BeamNG takes the crown. Anything below ~60mph feels pretty realistic to me through car movements and FFB. Above that the tires don't really have temp models and they start freaking out a bit. But it also simulates tire, suspension, frame, and steering rack flex in real time. If you send enough power through to the wheels the tire rubber and wheel rim itself will start to expand due to centrifugal forces.

16 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

Regarding DR2.0, it looks to me like the car's overall physics in its interaction with the surrounds has great integrity, that is to say, its inertia, momentum and collision physics. But does it then come down to the extent to which the engine, drivetrain and tyre surfaces are operating as a simulation, rather than reacting to inputs via look-up tables? I have no clue. Interested to hear people's thoughts here.

I haven't played RBR for a long time, but DR2.0 feels more 'high resolution' and significantly more sophisticated in its handling (based on memory). But then again, I'm playing with a controller not a wheel.

I haven't a clue what the most realistic racing simulator is out there currently, perhaps Rfactor or Assetto? But what little of rally mods I've seen on youtube for these simulators look rather primitive, at least graphically. I wonder how DR2.0 stacks up against those, and not just on tarmac but on gravel.

 

So for a good introduction, flight sims came out well before driving sims, because you can get away with using LUTs so you don't have to do real physical simulation in computationally expensive time. It's a perfectly fine method. Planes if you think about only have primarily the fuse that you have to worry about simulating, but with vehicles it's at least the 4 tires, and then still all of the aerodynamics of the vehicle itself which is exactly equivalent to an airplane. The only game I know that properly simulates all that in real time in BeamNG, and they haven't figured out how to do tire thermals yet. And people have made airplane mods that actually fly based on in-game physics.

From what I played of it, I have no idea why RBR gets praise at all. Vanilla and with mods it just wasn't great. I also spent some time with PCSX2 and tried out GT4 and Enthusia with my wheel. I was not impressed with GT4, but Enthusia was truly shockingly good. Has great suspension modelling and honestly gives AC a run for it's money, a decade prior. Honestly really good fun, but sucks with a controller. Though so did GT4... From here I could rant alongside Austin Ogonoski and say that racing sims really haven't changed much at all since 2000, but I won't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, JZStudios said:

 I was not impressed with GT4, but Enthusia was truly shockingly good. Has great suspension modelling and honestly gives AC a run for it's money, a decade prior.

I'd never heard of Enthusia before - what a terrific catch! It looks to have flown under the radar, but there is at least one video on youtube showing what a nice simulation that was, for its day. A PS2-only game published by Konami, but then again Konami gave us the masterpieces Silent Hill 1 and Shadow of Memories so there was clearly some appetite there for semi-crazy indie artists.

This has been the story for so long, serious simulation enthusiasts have had to struggle against the tide of commercial seas. But by now the tide must have changed.

@cmMikeRobson may be interested in chipping in here, or maybe not...

 

Edited by Jake Cushing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

This has been the story for so long, serious simulation enthusiasts have had to struggle against the tide of commercial seas. But by now the tide must have changed.

My problem is it's somehow changed so much that there's very little "fun" racing and driving games anymore. There's no more Burnout, Midnight Club, Driver, etc. and the only ones around that aren't "sim" handle terribly and for some reason people defend it with "But it's an arcade game, it's supposed to feel terrible."

Eh, anyways, if you want a look at Enthusia you can check this out;

A lot of people seem to not like Austin despite him consistently being at the top of the leaderboards in pretty much every game because he's really critical of sim games and how much they've stagnated, and how terrible some of the exploits are. I've always though he was the most reliable source to get a look at where sim games currently are. Enthusia really is eerily similar to AC, but I think actually a lot better and more fun to play with. It certainly does a lot more suspension travel and body roll than AC does, where everything must be maxed out all the time.

Edited by JZStudios
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goddamnit why didn't I know how good Enthusia was a few years ago when I still had PS2? I remember reading some review about it and the final verdict was average, so I gave it a pass.

Ferrrari F355 Challenge was cool though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd think of it as a sim at the game end of the spectrum, compared to GT/Forza, which are games - as opposed to a full on sim like iRacing for example. 

The recent e-Sport events using iRacing; IMSA, Nascar, Indycar were all pretty impressive - and attracted most of the top drivers, as I suspect most of them use it as a tool of the trade. Now compare to the F1 e-Sports event, which used a 'game' and attracted hardly any of the top drivers. 

It would be interesting to know what rally drivers use for a sim, and how Dirt Rally & WRC series compare. 

Also, why haven't we yet seen a WRC e-Sports event? Must be the only major series which hasn't bothered with one.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played the living c... out of Enthusia! Come to remember it, I bought it a second time after the first CD was too damaged. And that says a lot! That game was epically fun and simlike in many ways.

I miss you, Enthusia... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, danielofifi said:

Goddamnit why didn't I know how good Enthusia was a few years ago when I still had PS2? I remember reading some review about it and the final verdict was average, so I gave it a pass.

Oh, it's freaking terrible with a controller. I mean, I've only tried it with an Xbox controller, so maybe with the proper PS2 hardware it's better. GT4 for example used the pressure sensitive face buttons (I'm not sure if Enthusia does) but since my Xbox controller only has digital buttons it's either full throttle on or off, same with brakes. But with a wheel, it's proper gold. I've also got it set up to properly display 16:9 in progressive scan so it looks pretty good too.

 

7 hours ago, HafrenLMP1 said:

The recent e-Sport events using iRacing; IMSA, Nascar, Indycar were all pretty impressive - and attracted most of the top drivers, as I suspect most of them use it as a tool of the trade. Now compare to the F1 e-Sports event, which used a 'game' and attracted hardly any of the top drivers.

That's what iRacing markets it as, but any top level driver that actually plays it uses it as a toy to mess around in. There's more than a few cases of the pro drivers saying as such.

 

3 hours ago, SRD_SimVansevenant said:

I played the living c... out of Enthusia! Come to remember it, I bought it a second time after the first CD was too damaged. And that says a lot! That game was epically fun and simlike in many ways.

I miss you, Enthusia... 

It is a shame it never went anywhere. A sequel with some better funding would've been ace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2020 at 8:06 PM, UP100 said:

Honestly not many of us actually know what an actual simulator feels like, as they tend to not be sold for us. One of the most used simulators in racing and etc. seems to be rFpro and we have no way to even try what it feels like etc.

Oh. I have! It's interesting how I could jump straight in and not have much issues due to me playing loads of rF in that time. However, even though I felt like I was both fast, in super control and pushing one of the driver coaches there decided to do a small "pro-driver training" session with me. Holy smokes I had time to gain everywhere, and I didn't have as much control as I thought either. It was a really good experience. It showed me that "our" sims are surprisingly close to the pro-sims. Also, I don't have the motivation or will to be a top sim-driver 🙂

On 4/1/2020 at 6:33 PM, JZStudios said:

A lot of people seem to not like Austin despite him consistently being at the top of the leaderboards in pretty much every game because he's really critical of sim games and how much they've stagnated, and how terrible some of the exploits are. I've always though he was the most reliable source to get a look at where sim games currently are. Enthusia really is eerily similar to AC, but I think actually a lot better and more fun to play with. It certainly does a lot more suspension travel and body roll than AC does, where everything must be maxed out all the time.

It's not that he is critical though, it is how it is presented.
And quite a lot other reasons.

Speed isn't everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oh man, this Austin character really is the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons of racing.

He may seem to have a point regarding hidden assists in DR2.0, but it's overlooking that CM are aiming for a 'playable simulator'. And there's no criticism of the underlying physics. 

His adherence to RBR also seems to ignore that it feels somewhat primitive now compared to DR2.0

B

Edited by Jake Cushing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

He may seem to have a point regarding hidden assists in DR2.0, but it's overlooking that CM are aiming for a 'playable simulator'. And there's no criticism of the underlying physics. 

Well, at least the guy noticed the thing that bother me off so much. My problem with DR2.0 handling is exactly that you cannot feel the limits of the car. I mean you drive through a set of turns. One time you pass it cool and fast, second time you drive the same, but find yourself in a ditch. What the hell, did I do wrong?! The car seemed pretty controllable, and then just suddenly lost all traction. The problem is that instead of learning the principles of passing the corners, you have to learn how to pass existing set of specific corners. It is still challenging, but it is not rally.

Edited by Tigron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I was about to post that I thought that Austin dude was talking out of his exhaust pipe, especially with DR2.0 being a 'sterile experience'. But what do you mean by 'not feeling the limits of the car'? Do you mean a loss of horizontal stability at high speeds? Or is the the braking that's somehow 'canned', or something else?

I don't notice any of that. What I do notice is sometimes the handbrake can be an 'automagic slide button', but I like how it works personally, especially on a controller. And on tarmac, the in-car view feels like a slot-car, ie too rigid with no sense of body-roll, but I think that's more to do with the view itself, being 'glued to the seat' rather than being a 'head-cam' like we got in RBR and Project Cars 2 especially.

Whatever the case, he's certainly a pompous Comic-Book Guy.

 

Edited by Jake Cushing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dirt rally 2.0 is the best overall rally game but the tarmac isnt still as good as the original assetto corsa game which in my opinion nailed it the best.

RBR was great at the time it came out not really realistic just hard for the sake of hard. you then learned the hardness then people applied this to realness. which it wasnt realistic at all. infact tarmac is like driving on ice and the gravel is just so so. dirt rally 1 is better than rbr and dirt rally 2.0 is better. its just they have little issues that need to be ironed out. tarmac especially.

thats what im waiting to happen for dirt rally games. as when tarmacs dailed in much of the silly arguements debates about which is better will be gone. as nothing will touch dirt rally with good tarmac.

what i must say is there will always be debate..even if handling is nailed in any game. as people like different things or havent driven cars in real life or done any rally. or...just have different opinions. which is fair enough.

Edited by dgeesi0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I was hoping the thread wouldn't be so much of a debate as to which game is better etc, but rather some thoughts on what DR2.0 is actually simulating. I guess without physics parameter files or input from devs we really won't know, but it's been interesting discussion nonetheless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Jake Cushing said:

Yeah I was hoping the thread wouldn't be so much of a debate as to which game is better etc, but rather some thoughts on what DR2.0 is actually simulating. I guess without physics parameter files or input from devs we really won't know, but it's been interesting discussion nonetheless. 

Yes, also without telemetry tools it's hard to judge what and to what extent the game simulates and how much of a "sim" it is. In Project Cars 2 you can monitor your tyre temperature and wear, suspension travel etc in real time and react accordingly. In DR2 you still have to sort of guess which tyres to choose or how stiff the suspension should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

He may seem to have a point regarding hidden assists in DR2.0, but it's overlooking that CM are aiming for a 'playable simulator'. And there's no criticism of the underlying physics. 

Most racing games that work nativily with controller, and have somewhat decent out of the box default settings; often have hidden assistence running in the back ground. Such as speed sensitivity, which reduces how much the wheels will turn the faster you go; in order to stop you going full lock at 100+ mph. As well as some form of input filtering. Otherwise the games would just not be playable on a control pad. Forza dothe same things, as does Gran Turismo, and I believe Pcars 2 as well. Assetto Corsa might on the console, not tried it, but on PC version, you have to add the input filtering and speed sensitivity manually in the controller options.
 

7 hours ago, Tigron said:

Well, at least the guy noticed the thing that bother me off so much. My problem with DR2.0 handling is exactly that you cannot feel the limits of the car. I mean you drive through a set of turns. One time you pass it cool and fast, second time you drive the same, but find yourself in a ditch. What the hell, did I do wrong?! The car seemed pretty controllable, and then just suddenly lost all traction. The problem is that instead of learning the principles of passing the corners, you have to learn how to pass existing set of specific corners. It is still challenging, but it is not rally. 

I dont want to get into another argument with you Tigron, but I have to be honest here. This is actually more of a "you" problem than the game. Your posting here, what you say right in this post. It shows you lack consistency with your driving. If I have to hazard a guess, I would say your braking and turning points are different every run you have. Im not having a go, just pointing out thats how you comment comes across.

I know we got off on the wrong foot in the other thread, but try my advice here. Go to time trial mode, driver slower in a car you are comfortable with, take away the stress of competing against the AI or other players; and just practice. No BS from me at all, it will improve your gameplay drasticly if you follow that advice and give it some time. Thats how you learn a new car, course, even racing game. By starting off slow, and then your speed will build up as you go. You become more consistent, you become faster, and you become more skillful.
 

On 4/1/2020 at 7:51 PM, HafrenLMP1 said:

Also, why haven't we yet seen a WRC e-Sports event? Must be the only major series which hasn't bothered with one.

There is a WRC e-sport event, its been going on at least a few years now. I believe Jon Armstrong has won it 2018

https://www.wrc.com/en/more/gaming/esports-wrc/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/motorsport/45234950

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 0.02....  I'm pretty new at DR2 (and have very little knowledge of European rally at all) but I'm a redneck so have driven offroad all my life, starting from a very early age.  It was only once I got my license that my wheels ever touched pavement.  So, I think I have a pretty good set of expectations as to how cars should behave both on- and off-road, IN GENERAL.  Obviously, each vehicle is different, and can be set up differently, and I've never driven any of the cars in DR2 in real life.  Thus, I can't judge the accuracy of any specific car on any specific road with any specific set-up.

That said, WHILE IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND AND UPRIGHT, I find the simulation/physics aspects of vehicle behavior well within my expectations based on my real-life driving experience.  Cars set up for gravel slide but are controllable on gravel, but suck on pavement.  Just like real life, so good.  Cars set up for pavement work fine there but suck on gravel.  Just like real life, so good.  Cars set up to compromise on both partially suck at both.  Just like real life, so good.  Finally, even if the car is set up for the surface you're on, if you drive it too fast for conditions (weather, hills, turns, visibility, whatever), then it WILL get away from you.  IOW, it's not all the car, it's also largely the driver.  Just like real life, so good.  So all in all, whether or not the game is spot-on with its modeling, I find it all quite believable and therefore this part of the game is fine with me.

HOWEVER, the physics breaks down when the car is NOT on the ground because, seemingly, the underlying physics model is quite simple.  It appears physics only cares about 5 points:  the contact points of the 4 tires and the car's center of mass.  The collision system, OTOH, cares about the whole 3D shape of the car.  This all works fine for handling routine rally jumps where the car isn't airborne very long, is going in a straight line, is right-side up, and will land (hopefully) with its wheels on the road.  But you really see the weakness of this system in a major crash with the car flipping or rolling.  This is NOT done realistically AT ALL.  Of course, your race should be over at this point so wonky crashing behavior doesn't really affect play.  BUT, it IS informative of how the game handles regular driving, and that's a bit troubling.

The 1st thing you notice with a flipping car is that it rotates about a point that's not anywhere near where you'd expect the center of mass to be.  This point is centered between the wheels instead of being towards the front (for a front-engined car).  This point is also off vertically.  Sometimes it's slightly above the roofline, sometimes just below the floorpan, but never in line with the main masses of the vehicle (powertrain, wheels, and crew).  Thus, flipping cars usually rotate around an axis that does not even pass through the vehicle.  The 2nd thing you notice is the ridiculously high RPM flipping vehicles often have.  This is because the entire mass of the vehicle is modeled at the CoM and the main meat of the physics system only cares about the CoM and the points of contact of the wheels.  Thus, when something other than a wheel touches the terrain, and the wheels themselves aren't on the ground so can't provide any resistance to rotation, the impact causes the car to spin stupidly fast because it effectively has zero moment of inertial to the impact force.

This all has implications for how the cars drive when right-side up on the roads as intended.  The slides will appear to have more oversteer because the car is rotating around a point behind the driver, rather than even with or in front of the driver.  The angle of the oversteer might be correct but it will look like more from the in-car driver's POV because he's getting moved more himself in the process.  Not that big a deal.  The real concern is the vertical offset of the CoM, to the point of being outside the car either above or below.  This is probably affected by the ride height setting and the huge range of CoM motion indicates that all is not well with the tire grip algorithms.  IOW, realistic vertical movement of the CoM of only a handful of inches due to ride height changes didn't have enough effect on the wheel grip functions, and it was easier to just exaggerate the vertical CoM movement (through a range of about 2m) than to refine the grip model.

So, bottom line is, the physics model is pretty simple and has inherent weaknesses.  HOWEVER, it has been carefully optimized for a specific set of circumstances (car right-side up and moving along the road), so it does a pretty good job there.  It's close enough to expectations based on reality to be quite believable and fun.  But its flaws show when you get the car outside those circumstances.  Still, on the balance, it's a good system IMHO.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ialyrn said:

Most racing games that work nativily with controller, and have somewhat decent out of the box default settings; often have hidden assistence running in the back ground. Such as speed sensitivity, which reduces how much the wheels will turn the faster you go; in order to stop you going full lock at 100+ mph. As well as some form of input filtering. Otherwise the games would just not be playable on a control pad. Forza dothe same things, as does Gran Turismo, and I believe Pcars 2 as well. Assetto Corsa might on the console, not tried it, but on PC version, you have to add the input filtering and speed sensitivity manually in the controller options.

Assetto Corsa on the PS4 has several input filters for gamepad, 1. time delay of Input (has even two values to adjust), 2. speed sesitivity: reduction of the steering angle as the speed increases 3. linearity (call it gamma or something like that): reduction of the angle at the beginning of the stick. As always 4. the dead zone is added. I recommend 3%.

Project Cars 2 has all that, but the steering is much less accurate because the last 22% of the stick is unused. The maximum steering angle of the wheels is already reached with 78% of the inclination of the stick and if you activate the stability control on PCars2 (you need it to compensate for the gamepad, especially when it rains) you always get the traction control activated. But I hate the traction control and with AC you can set it separately and the stability control even in many steps.

The default setup of the cars is also bad in PCars 2 because many of the cars are for the road. In AC all cars are preset for the track and therefore don't rock too much.

Conclusion: PCars 2 is badly playable with the gamepad. I recommend the good old AC. On the PS4 Pro it has a good frame rate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, BayouRally said:

HOWEVER, the physics breaks down when the car is NOT on the ground because, seemingly, the underlying physics model is quite simple.  It appears physics only cares about 5 points:  the contact points of the 4 tires and the car's center of mass.  The collision system, OTOH, cares about the whole 3D shape of the car.  This all works fine for handling routine rally jumps where the car isn't airborne very long, is going in a straight line, is right-side up, and will land (hopefully) with its wheels on the road.  But you really see the weakness of this system in a major crash with the car flipping or rolling.  This is NOT done realistically AT ALL.  Of course, your race should be over at this point so wonky crashing behavior doesn't really affect play.  BUT, it IS informative of how the game handles regular driving, and that's a bit troubling. 

Its a bit difficult to say if its done right or wrong, but its not exactly 100% accurate to say a rally drivers race is over if they have a major crash and roll the car; as has been proven IRL Rally events plenty of times. But this is the great thing about rallying though, we get some see some amazing things from real life rally drivers, such as this one from Colin Mcrae when he drove the MK1 Focus.
 

2 major crashes that both resulted in the car rolling on 2 different stages on the same day; and he still kept going in his flat out style of driving.

Edited by Ialyrn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ialyrn said:

...  its not exactly 100% accurate to say a rally drivers race is over if they have a major crash and roll the car; as has been proven IRL.....

I know.  I watch me some rally, especially crash compilations 😉 Provided the impact(s) aren't too severe, and happen on the tougher spots of the car instead of the fragile bits, rallycars can survive rolls.  Happens all the time.  But they do have their limits, too.  The difficulty in DR2 is knowing where to draw the line.  The cars flip both much easier and MUCH more rapidly than real life, at least if the flipping starts when the wheels aren't on the ground.  Thus, crashes in DR2 often look much more severe than the same crash would have been in real life.  So how do you know if the damage after a DR2 crash would be survivable in real life?  I don't really know...

BUT, I get the impression that the damage model takes this into account to some extent.  You know how when you're rolling over rapidly but but don't hear, see, or feel each side of the car impacting, and feel like you're just floating?  My guess is that in terms of impact damage, you really ARE floating.  The game could be just ignoring all the excess rolls and figuring the damage on a more realistic view of what would really be happening.  IOW, if DR2 says your car can still drive after some brutal rolling that would have destroyed a real car, maybe we should take its word for it.  Instead of saying the damage model is nerfed, maybe it's just compensating for a weakness in the physics model that makes crashes LOOK worse than they really are.

This is kinda getting off topic, though.  My point in mentioning the wonky crash flips was because they illustrate how the car's physics model actually works better than does driving properly.  When you know how the model works, you can better judge its performance in the areas that really matter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... no body actually knows what Dirt Rally actually simulates compared to RBR or other sims? For me Dirt feels like the movement of the car is faked and not a result of many calculations it doesn't actually feel rolling on wheels. While they did a really great job of making this into a quite realistic game the feeling is very different when compared to sims where you can feel the car and be way more precise and understand the physics. Some things in Dirt just happens and it is hard to understand why. While RBR feels more like other simulators, where you have more precise control. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×