rec.autos.simulators

by **Stephen F** » Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:42:09

I thought I liked F1-2001, but now it's beginning to irritate me. I've
patched it, downloaded various setups to see if it's just my lack of ability
to set up a car, but still I'm not likeing it. The first clues that all was
not right was being able to blast Becketts or Eau Rouge flat, always.
Unless I use a completely unrealistic setup, sort of like the old GP1 fast
lap setups with no rear wing and full front, I never lose the back end, even
under braking, unless I get on the grass. I have understeer always, even
doing strange things with roll stiffness. This seemed pretty strange, so I
played around a little. I took all the wings off, jacked up the gears and
ended up with a Williams which would top out at about 380kph. I imagine a
little playing with the ride height would increase this a bit. Then I went
to the Indy and drove the full oval. It was terrible. I could run high,
low, or even saw away at the steering wheel in mid corner. No problems. I
could ***ly swerve on the straights at 380 and never lose it. Note, I
have no driving aids on. I was turning laps about as fast as the best
CART/IRL laps, in a car with no aero, and driving like Jerry Lewis. Somehow
this left me flat. Even GP3-2000 had a better fell under trail braking, or
when dancing along with a car set up with minimal wing.

When is someone going to finally get a F1 sim right, which has the
mechanical grip problems at low speed, but accurate aero at high speeds?

Stephen

by **artie beame** » Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:33:30

perhaps with your expertise you could have a go

by **Harja** » Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:54:39

The thing is that they've overdone the downforce values of the wings and the
body. If you divide them by about three the car handles far more realistic.
Try it.

by **Stephen F** » Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:07:45

Hi Artie

I would never suggest that I personally could do a better job. I'm not paid
to write sims. I haven't spent years working on this stuff. I also don't
expect the guys at ISI to be able to do my job. However, there's a question
mark in the subject. I would be happy if someone would set me straight, say
"download so-and-so's setup and you will see that you are completely wrong".
But driving flat-out around the Indy oval with no wings and changing lines
***ly with no consequences doesn't seem plausible. Choosing multiple
lines through Becketts or Eau Rouge, flat out, seems odd to me.

Stephen

by **Tore Hanso** » Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:54:01

Based on this I see that F1/2001 is sort of an "honesty" sim. If you use the
values that are available you can drive it like "Need for Speed"? I think
I've been playing GPL too long. :-) I bought F1/2001 as a diversion to GPL,
but I see I may have to shelf this title. :-(

Tore

> The thing is that they've overdone the downforce values of the wings and
the
> body. If you divide them by about three the car handles far more
realistic.
> Try it.

> > I thought I liked F1-2001, but now it's beginning to irritate me. I've
> > patched it, downloaded various setups to see if it's just my lack of
> ability
> > to set up a car, but still I'm not likeing it. The first clues that all
> was
> > not right was being able to blast Becketts or Eau Rouge flat, always.
> > Unless I use a completely unrealistic setup, sort of like the old GP1
fast
> > lap setups with no rear wing and full front, I never lose the back end,
> even
> > under braking, unless I get on the grass. I have understeer always,
even
> > doing strange things with roll stiffness. This seemed pretty strange,
so
> I
> > played around a little. I took all the wings off, jacked up the gears
and
> > ended up with a Williams which would top out at about 380kph. I imagine
a
> > little playing with the ride height would increase this a bit. Then I
> went
> > to the Indy and drove the full oval. It was terrible. I could run
high,
> > low, or even saw away at the steering wheel in mid corner. No problems.
> I
> > could ***ly swerve on the straights at 380 and never lose it. Note,
I
> > have no driving aids on. I was turning laps about as fast as the best
> > CART/IRL laps, in a car with no aero, and driving like Jerry Lewis.
> Somehow
> > this left me flat. Even GP3-2000 had a better fell under trail braking,
> or
> > when dancing along with a car set up with minimal wing.

> > When is someone going to finally get a F1 sim right, which has the
> > mechanical grip problems at low speed, but accurate aero at high speeds?

> > Stephen

by **Haqsa** » Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:00:51

Well maybe I'm doing something wrong but that has not been my
experience. I find that if I set my wings to give me speeds on the
straights that are similar to real life, that my cornering speeds and
lap times for the most part fall right into line also. There are
admittedly a few corners where they got the elevation or the crown wrong
and therefore people are able to take them at unrealistic speeds, but
outside of those few places the physics seems to do a pretty good job of
matching real world telemetry. The problem is that if you are either
hotlapping or racing the AI there is no need to use a realistic setup.
The AI are arbitrarily too slow on the straights, and when hotlapping
you don't normally care about tire wear, so in either case you can crank
the wings up to unrealistically high values and get away with it. If F1
2001 had a stronger online component so that we could see some really
serious multiplayer racing, I think you would find that people would use
more realistic setups, and I think that you would then see realistic
speeds around most of the tracks.

> > I thought I liked F1-2001, but now it's beginning to irritate me.
I've
> > patched it, downloaded various setups to see if it's just my lack of
> ability
> > to set up a car, but still I'm not likeing it. The first clues that
all
> was
> > not right was being able to blast Becketts or Eau Rouge flat,

always.

Real life drivers are able to take Eau Rouge flat. They normally don't
because it is extremely difficult and dangerous. But as a sim driver
you don't have to deal with either of those things. It's not as
difficult for you because you are not being subjected to the G forces
that they are. Think about how quickly and precisely you have to twitch
the wheel to get through without lifting. Do you think you could still
do that if you were being pounded around the***pit while you were
trying? Not just lateral loading either, but there has got to be a huge
vertical load when you hit the bottom, and I don't know how they keep
their lunch in when they go over the top. I don't think I could do it
in real life, but without that G loading, it's just a simple twitch of
the wheel, properly timed. And who cares if you crash in a sim?

Not sure what is going on there. I find it pretty easy to kick the back
end out, both when I want to and when I don't want to. ;o)

Well that's certainly pretty weird, but again that just has not been my
experience. I find it responds the way I would expect it to when I
change anything in the setup. Not to be an ass or anything, but are you
sure you saved the setup after you made those changes? That's the only
thing I can think of.

Now that's funny. That is one of the most common complaints about F1
2001 - lack of grip at low speeds and too much at high speeds. Oh well,
can't please everybody. ;o)

by **artie beame** » Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:15:41

f1-2001 would be the best sim in the world if online wasnt almost unplayable

> > The thing is that they've overdone the downforce values of the wings
> and the
> > body. If you divide them by about three the car handles far more
> realistic.
> > Try it.

> Well maybe I'm doing something wrong but that has not been my
> experience. I find that if I set my wings to give me speeds on the
> straights that are similar to real life, that my cornering speeds and
> lap times for the most part fall right into line also. There are
> admittedly a few corners where they got the elevation or the crown wrong
> and therefore people are able to take them at unrealistic speeds, but
> outside of those few places the physics seems to do a pretty good job of
> matching real world telemetry. The problem is that if you are either
> hotlapping or racing the AI there is no need to use a realistic setup.
> The AI are arbitrarily too slow on the straights, and when hotlapping
> you don't normally care about tire wear, so in either case you can crank
> the wings up to unrealistically high values and get away with it. If F1
> 2001 had a stronger online component so that we could see some really
> serious multiplayer racing, I think you would find that people would use
> more realistic setups, and I think that you would then see realistic
> speeds around most of the tracks.

> > > I thought I liked F1-2001, but now it's beginning to irritate me.
> I've
> > > patched it, downloaded various setups to see if it's just my lack of
> > ability
> > > to set up a car, but still I'm not likeing it. The first clues that
> all
> > was
> > > not right was being able to blast Becketts or Eau Rouge flat,
> always.

> Real life drivers are able to take Eau Rouge flat. They normally don't
> because it is extremely difficult and dangerous. But as a sim driver
> you don't have to deal with either of those things. It's not as
> difficult for you because you are not being subjected to the G forces
> that they are. Think about how quickly and precisely you have to twitch
> the wheel to get through without lifting. Do you think you could still
> do that if you were being pounded around the***pit while you were
> trying? Not just lateral loading either, but there has got to be a huge
> vertical load when you hit the bottom, and I don't know how they keep
> their lunch in when they go over the top. I don't think I could do it
> in real life, but without that G loading, it's just a simple twitch of
> the wheel, properly timed. And who cares if you crash in a sim?

> > > Unless I use a completely unrealistic setup, sort of like the old
> GP1 fast
> > > lap setups with no rear wing and full front, I never lose the back
> end,
> > even
> > > under braking, unless I get on the grass.

> Not sure what is going on there. I find it pretty easy to kick the back
> end out, both when I want to and when I don't want to. ;o)

> > I have understeer always, even
> > > doing strange things with roll stiffness. This seemed pretty
> strange, so
> > I
> > > played around a little. I took all the wings off, jacked up the
> gears and
> > > ended up with a Williams which would top out at about 380kph. I
> imagine a
> > > little playing with the ride height would increase this a bit. Then
> I
> > went
> > > to the Indy and drove the full oval. It was terrible. I could run
> high,
> > > low, or even saw away at the steering wheel in mid corner. No
> problems.
> > I
> > > could ***ly swerve on the straights at 380 and never lose it.
> Note, I
> > > have no driving aids on. I was turning laps about as fast as the
> best
> > > CART/IRL laps, in a car with no aero, and driving like Jerry Lewis.
> > Somehow
> > > this left me flat.

> Well that's certainly pretty weird, but again that just has not been my
> experience. I find it responds the way I would expect it to when I
> change anything in the setup. Not to be an ass or anything, but are you
> sure you saved the setup after you made those changes? That's the only
> thing I can think of.

> > Even GP3-2000 had a better fell under trail braking,
> > or
> > > when dancing along with a car set up with minimal wing.

> > > When is someone going to finally get a F1 sim right, which has the
> > > mechanical grip problems at low speed, but accurate aero at high
> speeds?

> Now that's funny. That is one of the most common complaints about F1
> 2001 - lack of grip at low speeds and too much at high speeds. Oh well,
> can't please everybody. ;o)

by **Stephen F** » Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:52:28

True, the danger factor is gone. But I can take it flat, and take a variety
of lines, and if I get the entry wrong, I can get off the gas and take a
radically different exit without any consequences.

Under acceleration sure, but under braking almost never (for me). Strange.

Don't worry, you're not an ass for making a helpful suggestion. Yes, I
saved it. Otherwise I wouldn't have the warp speed top end.

Sigh... it's a fun game, and I'll keep driving it, but it's still missing
something for me.

Stephen

by **Haqsa** » Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:54:42

> > Not sure what is going on there. I find it pretty easy to kick the
back
> > end out, both when I want to and when I don't want to. ;o)

> Under acceleration sure, but under braking almost never (for me).

Strange.

Ah, now that one I can help you with. Download Turner's setup editor
from http://members.rogers.com:81/nwalkz/ and use it to set the brake
pressure for all of your setups to 100%. Now get ready to relearn how
to modulate your brake pedal. ;o)

by **Haqsa** » Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:39:05

Another thing to keep in mind is that setting the wings to zero doesn't
remove them. They are still there, and they are still acting like
wings. Plus the diffuser is still providing downforce. I did some
rough calculations based on the Williams.hdv file, and at wing angles of
zero there is still sufficient aerodynamics to generate over 600 lbs of
downforce at 100 mph.

rec.autos.simulators

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?

F1-2001 high-speed "handling"?