Jump to content Jump to content

V2 Physics Discussion


griev0r

Recommended Posts

teknoid85 said:
so answer me this please:

why v1 cars don't start to fly by hitting a stone like v2 does?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

come on answer   ;)
Because the incorrect downforce settings keeps the car glued to the road, stopping your car from lifting off the ground enough for the faulty aerodynamics to do it's crazy thing.

;)
Link to post
Share on other sites
teknoid85 said:
so answer me this please:

why v1 cars don't start to fly by hitting a stone like v2 does?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

come on answer   ;)
Because the incorrect downforce settings keeps the car glued to the road, stopping your car from lifting off the ground enough for the faulty aerodynamics to do it's crazy thing.

;)
This, there was a lot of  'gravity/downforce/etc' being added to the cars.
Link to post
Share on other sites
teknoid85 said:
so answer me this please:

why v1 cars don't start to fly by hitting a stone like v2 does?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

come on answer   ;)
Because the incorrect downforce settings keeps the car glued to the road, stopping your car from lifting off the ground enough for the faulty aerodynamics to do it's crazy thing.

;)
so you say that flying problem is an aerodynamic bug and not downforce?  english is not my native language so somtimes it's a bit difficult to understand correctly.

anyway i hope this gets fixed asap

Link to post
Share on other sites
teknoid85 said:
so answer me this please:

why v1 cars don't start to fly by hitting a stone like v2 does?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

come on answer   ;)
Because the incorrect downforce settings keeps the car glued to the road, stopping your car from lifting off the ground enough for the faulty aerodynamics to do it's crazy thing.

;)
This, there was a lot of  'gravity/downforce/etc' being added to the cars.
before too much, now way too less :D
Link to post
Share on other sites
teknoid85 said:
teknoid85 said:
so answer me this please:

why v1 cars don't start to fly by hitting a stone like v2 does?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

come on answer   ;)
Because the incorrect downforce settings keeps the car glued to the road, stopping your car from lifting off the ground enough for the faulty aerodynamics to do it's crazy thing.

;)
This, there was a lot of  'gravity/downforce/etc' being added to the cars.
before too much, now way too less :D
not really.
in v1 physics, they had to make the cars weight lower than in real life and kept the downforce way higher than in real life in order to compensate for the aerodynamics.
now, with v2 the cars weight and downforce are quite accuratly realistic, however:
the calculation of aerodynamics is something that needs a lot of computing and by "a lot" i mean, you probably need a supercomputer for this.
so codemasters are trying to ease up on the calculation, in order to make a "normal" computer, able to calculate all that with decent performance.
Since it's possible to make a 100% accurate simulation of this, certain parts of the aerodymanics need to be left out and for some reason this affects the behaviour of cars getting airborne in this game.
It's something they are trying to fix.
But the thing is, from v1 to v2, in case you are not airborne and on the ground, physics and car behaviour are way more realistic.

making a "simulation game" is always a matter of compromising.

EDIT: excuse some of the typos, english is not my first language and i had a few beers after work ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites
AphDburn said:
You are all aware Paul said yesterday in the Dirt Show that they know the cars feel fucked up when not on the ground right? 
Yes, but that's a different issue. The game is a rally simulator, not a flight simulator, so things like that are always going to be iffy.
All they can really do is try to make it feel right, rather than actually simulate it. It's all going to be a compromise.
Teknoid is complaining about the whole package. Not just cars flying, but just feeling too light in ever way, including handling.

Personally, I don't agree with that and prefer v2.
Thing is, most of us just have perceptions. Unless we've done any of this stuff in real life, we're hardly qualified to say if the cars feel too heavy or light. They certainly aren't comparable to road cars.

What we do know for an absolute fact is that the v1 cars had too much downforce constantly pushing them down into the ground.

We're absolutely no-where near the kind of hardware (or budgets) that can do full real-time simulation of so many factors.
The sims used by F1 teams with massive budgets aren't going to simulate how a car behaves when it leaves the ground, because that's beyond the scope of the simulation envelope, and those things cost millions to develop while having the huge benefit of being fed with real telemetry data.

Some of the most advanced simulators in the world, such as for the F-35 Lightning II, cost $1.5 million each and that's just for the unit.
The development costs for those simulators is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
So that's the kind of perspective we always need to keep in mind when playing our $60 'simulations' on $1,000 hardware.

Link to post
Share on other sites
teknoid85 said:
teknoid85 said:
so answer me this please:

why v1 cars don't start to fly by hitting a stone like v2 does?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

come on answer   ;)
Because the incorrect downforce settings keeps the car glued to the road, stopping your car from lifting off the ground enough for the faulty aerodynamics to do it's crazy thing.

;)
so you say that flying problem is an aerodynamic bug and not downforce?  english is not my native language so somtimes it's a bit difficult to understand correctly.

anyway i hope this gets fixed asap

Yes, I'm saying that it's an aerodynamic problem.
Link to post
Share on other sites
BrySkye said:
AphDburn said:
You are all aware Paul said yesterday in the Dirt Show that they know the cars feel fucked up when not on the ground right? 
Yes, but that's a different issue. The game is a rally simulator, not a flight simulator, so things like that are always going to be iffy.
All they can really do is try to make it feel right, rather than actually simulate it. It's all going to be a compromise.
Teknoid is complaining about the whole package. Not just cars flying, but just feeling too light in ever way, including handling.

Thing is, most of us just have perceptions. Unless we've done any of this stuff in real life, we're hardly qualified to say if the cars feel too heavy or light. They certainly aren't comparable to road cars.



you've got me right ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites
teknoid85 said:
teknoid85 said:
so answer me this please:

why v1 cars don't start to fly by hitting a stone like v2 does?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

come on answer   ;)
Because the incorrect downforce settings keeps the car glued to the road, stopping your car from lifting off the ground enough for the faulty aerodynamics to do it's crazy thing.

;)
This, there was a lot of  'gravity/downforce/etc' being added to the cars.
before too much, now way too less :D
No, you got it right the previous post, there is now the right amount of 'pushing down' on the cars, but once the car is airborne, it's subject to aerodynamic forces, and they're not right at the moment.  Once the FFB is leveled out for all cars, they'll feel a lot heavier to us again, at least when they're not completely off the ground.
Link to post
Share on other sites
teknoid85 said:
teknoid85 said:
so answer me this please:

why v1 cars don't start to fly by hitting a stone like v2 does?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

come on answer   ;)
Because the incorrect downforce settings keeps the car glued to the road, stopping your car from lifting off the ground enough for the faulty aerodynamics to do it's crazy thing.

;)
This, there was a lot of  'gravity/downforce/etc' being added to the cars.
before too much, now way too less :D
No, you got it right the previous post, there is now the right amount of 'pushing down' on the cars, but once the car is airborne, it's subject to aerodynamic forces, and they're not right at the moment.  Once the FFB is leveled out for all cars, they'll feel a lot heavier to us again, at least when they're not completely off the ground.
i hope so :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think one of the biggest things tainting this discussion is that we don't know exactly how downforce acts on the cars in their game engine. Everyone is so fast to claim they know what values need to be tweaked and this will only lead to more confusion when the devs read this. Please just state what exactly it is about the car's behavior that you dislike and perhaps provide video examples. We're seriously just beating a dead horse.
Link to post
Share on other sites
ramPage16 said:
I think one of the biggest things tainting this discussion is that we don't know exactly how downforce acts on the cars in their game engine. Everyone is so fast to claim they know what values need to be tweaked and this will only lead to more confusion when the devs read this. Please just state what exactly it is about the car's behavior that you dislike and perhaps provide video examples. We're seriously just beating a dead horse.
                                                                                                     
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry but I have to call BS on the aero simulation computing requirements. There are flight sim games that simulate all these at a level of "as close as makes no difference". There are many reasons why military flight sims cost that much and the aero simulation probably wouldn't be very near the top of the list. 

That said, DR doesn't need to have perfect aero simulation, or even close to perfect. They just need to fix some weird behaviors that occur now and then when getting air. My biggest issue right now is that the cars get airborne way too easily as many others have noted. Indeed as someone else posted, "jump maybe" (and I'll add even "crest" sometimes) now means "huge jump". I also feel at times that some cars (mostly the 01 WRCs) are, if not perfect, quite convincing when airborne and when landing, but some others of the V2 ones feel "off" (can't quantify it at the moment). The 1995 Impreza (and a couple of others) actually feels like nothing has changed from V1 regarding jumping behavior. 

However seeing as they've acknowledged there being an issue, I'm content to let them do their thing and see what happens. I wouldn't presume to suggest what they should do as I'm sure they know a lot more about how their engine handles these things than I do. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it not obvious that the stages were designed for V1 cars to jump over, but V1 didn't handle that well?  We then got a V2 update, which lightened the cars physics, which left them infinitely better to drive, but the stages are still running the jumps that were profiled with V1 cars in mind?

Its the stages that need amended, the cars definitely aren't broken!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
On the RX tracks the cars behave like they should over the jumps imo. Esp over the jump just before the last corner at Höljes. Coming over it slightly sideways makes for a spectacular landing. It looks spot on as the real life rx cars come over it.

I think the biggest problem lies with the exagerated jumps/elevations in Finland. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kosmo17 said:
I'm sorry but I have to call BS on the aero simulation computing requirements. There are flight sim games that simulate all these at a level of "as close as makes no difference". There are many reasons why military flight sims cost that much and the aero simulation probably wouldn't be very near the top of the list. 

That said, DR doesn't need to have perfect aero simulation, or even close to perfect. They just need to fix some weird behaviors that occur now and then when getting air. My biggest issue right now is that the cars get airborne way too easily as many others have noted. Indeed as someone else posted, "jump maybe" (and I'll add even "crest" sometimes) now means "huge jump". I also feel at times that some cars (mostly the 01 WRCs) are, if not perfect, quite convincing when airborne and when landing, but some others of the V2 ones feel "off" (can't quantify it at the moment). The 1995 Impreza (and a couple of others) actually feels like nothing has changed from V1 regarding jumping behavior. 

However seeing as they've acknowledged there being an issue, I'm content to let them do their thing and see what happens. I wouldn't presume to suggest what they should do as I'm sure they know a lot more about how their engine handles these things than I do. 
i agree exept for impreza1995. before the update it never fly's around like crazy and stay well on the ground
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kosmo17 said:
I'm sorry but I have to call BS on the aero simulation computing requirements. There are flight sim games that simulate all these at a level of "as close as makes no difference". There are many reasons why military flight sims cost that much and the aero simulation probably wouldn't be very near the top of the list. 
Oh, you have no idea how far off the mark you are. No flight sim games actually simulate all of that the way you think.

This be a tangent, but it's an area I actually do know some of the inner workings of.
You know how the Microsoft Flight Simulator "Flight Dynamics Engine" works?
Look up tables. Not real time simulation. Hard numbers in what is basically a spread sheet.



X-Plane has the best flight simulation of any home simulator, but it's still no where near good enough for the military and airlines to use for actual training and certification. It can help you get a PPL, though certification requires specific hardware/software combinations that start at $5,000

Believe me. No flight simulator running on your computer is truly "as close as makes no difference".
Flight simulation is kind of interesting because there is actually a lot of current and retired pilots that are part of its community, and many of them actively participate in the creation and testing of 3rd party add-ons (you don't want to go near any of the default stuff, that's a joke).
I helped test the most accurate Concorde home simulation there has ever been and had the pleasure of demonstrating it to Christopher Orlebar (look that name up) and I also did some work with a retired RAF Tornado pilot who runs the Virtual Royal Air Force. I was one of the very few participants who was not active or retired from the RAF.
I also worked for CLS for a while making promotional videos aimed at the USAF and FedEx towards using MSFS/MSESP (now Lockheed-Martin Prepar3D) based add-ons and modules as a low budget training aid for very very very low-level initial training.
Nothing came of that and I ended up doing more work for support, testing and making textures. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0vOJ9wkGCU

We'd all hold our hands up and say that the simulation is no where near perfect, no matter how much fudging you do to get something that feels right.
In fact, it's only barely passable in certain areas.
And yeah, I've flown a real plane too.
You can get a pretty decent airliner simulation in certain phases of flight, but it all falls apart very very quickly when you try doing something outside of that tiny tiny window.

Sorry for that long one, but yeah. Flight Simulation isn't easy, even in those games 100% dedicated to it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thankyou for differentiating between pre-baked and real-time simulation, i hope it'll help many here.

1) I read that you were making porno videos, if i hadn't already finished my coffee, it would be all over the screen :(

2) It's important to note here, that because a rally game has far fewer possibilities than a flight sim, it's much easier to enter the pre-calculated info into the game.  I don't mean to say this is easy by any stretch, just not like a flight sim will be :D 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...