F1CS2K Demo Physics Gripes

Well, the cars feel "natural" I will say that, so I would say the physics engine itself is pretty good. However, I think the way the car is modeled is all wrong for a couple of reasons. The car feels absolutely massive, like the polar moment of inertia is just enormous. When the rear end starts to get away from you, it's so gradual you've got all day to catch it. Shades of SCGT. I really think I've driven road cars that feel twitchier than this. Anyone who's ever seen an F1 or CART driver apply opposite lock knows that it requires an extremely quick flick of the wheel. F1CS2000 doesn't even come close to capturing that "feel". I really think GP3 is much closer to reality in that respect. Along similar lines, once the rear does get away from you it takes way too long to correct it. Again, from watching F1 and CART, I think the correction should be very quick. A sharp snap of opposite lock, and it's over. Either that, or it should fishtail a couple of times, but it should do so very quickly. The other thing is the weird wheelspin. I'm less certain about this issue, but it seems like once the rear wheels begin to spin, there's nothing you can do but slam on the brakes, if you want to stop it quickly. F1 cars are far more sensitive to taking your foot off the throttle. Do so, and the wheelspin should stop immediately, although the sudden engine braking might make you lose grip. F1 cars have almost no flywheel and extremely powerful engine braking. There's nothing that would keep the rear wheels spinning like they do in this sim. A related problem could be the way the engine revs. When you're in neutral, and you rev the engine, the revs drop veeerrryy slooowly when you lift your foot. Again, not realistic. Ever heard an F1 car rev it's engine? The revs drop immediately. It sounds completely insane, all twitchy and violent. Sorta reminds me of someone learning to play the violin, with their bow bouncing off the strings. The wheelspin and revving problem suggest to me that the cars have unrealistically large flywheels, but of course there's no way to know for sure. I suppose comparisons between this sim and GP3 are obligatory, so here goes. I'd say that F1CS2K probably has a better physics engine, but GP3 seems to have far more accurate parameters for an F1 car, and consequently GP3 much better captures the look and feel of F1 racing based on what I've seen on TV. Thanks for listening. Comments are welcome (obviously). -Aubrey

I agree with you for the most part. I will say though, that I am having the most fun play this game than any other F1 racing game to this point. I really think the game is fun and that is the most important to me.... "Aubrey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1D6%5.16822$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Well, the cars feel "natural" I will say that, so I would say the physics > engine itself is pretty good. However, I think the way the car is modeled > is all wrong for a couple of reasons. > > The car feels absolutely massive, like the polar moment of inertia is just > enormous. When the rear end starts to get away from you, it's so gradual > you've got all day to catch it. Shades of SCGT. I really think I've

driven

Quoted text (11 lines)

> road cars that feel twitchier than this. Anyone who's ever seen an F1 or > CART driver apply opposite lock knows that it requires an extremely quick > flick of the wheel. F1CS2000 doesn't even come close to capturing that > "feel". I really think GP3 is much closer to reality in that respect. > Along similar lines, once the rear does get away from you it takes way too > long to correct it. Again, from watching F1 and CART, I think the > correction should be very quick. A sharp snap of opposite lock, and it's > over. Either that, or it should fishtail a couple of times, but it should > do so very quickly. > > The other thing is the weird wheelspin. I'm less certain about this

issue, > but it seems like once the rear wheels begin to spin, there's nothing you > can do but slam on the brakes, if you want to stop it quickly. F1 carsare > far more sensitive to taking your foot off the throttle. Do so, and the > wheelspin should stop immediately, although the sudden engine brakingmight > make you lose grip. F1 cars have almost no flywheel and extremelypowerful

Quoted text (12 lines)

> engine braking. There's nothing that would keep the rear wheels spinning > like they do in this sim. A related problem could be the way the engine > revs. When you're in neutral, and you rev the engine, the revs drop > veeerrryy slooowly when you lift your foot. Again, not realistic. Ever > heard an F1 car rev it's engine? The revs drop immediately. It sounds > completely insane, all twitchy and violent. Sorta reminds me of someone > learning to play the violin, with their bow bouncing off the strings. The > wheelspin and revving problem suggest to me that the cars have > unrealistically large flywheels, but of course there's no way to know for > sure. > > I suppose comparisons between this sim and GP3 are obligatory, so here

goes.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I'd say that F1CS2K probably has a better physics engine, but GP3 seems to > have far more accurate parameters for an F1 car, and consequently GP3 much > better captures the look and feel of F1 racing based on what I've seen on > TV. > > Thanks for listening. Comments are welcome (obviously). > > -Aubrey > >

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

it's TOO scgt IMO Aubrey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1D6%5.16822$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Well, the cars feel "natural" I will say that, so I would say the physics > engine itself is pretty good. However, I think the way the car is modeled > is all wrong for a couple of reasons. > > The car feels absolutely massive, like the polar moment of inertia is just > enormous. When the rear end starts to get away from you, it's so gradual > you've got all day to catch it. Shades of SCGT. I really think I've

driven

Quoted text (11 lines)

> road cars that feel twitchier than this. Anyone who's ever seen an F1 or > CART driver apply opposite lock knows that it requires an extremely quick > flick of the wheel. F1CS2000 doesn't even come close to capturing that > "feel". I really think GP3 is much closer to reality in that respect. > Along similar lines, once the rear does get away from you it takes way too > long to correct it. Again, from watching F1 and CART, I think the > correction should be very quick. A sharp snap of opposite lock, and it's > over. Either that, or it should fishtail a couple of times, but it should > do so very quickly. > > The other thing is the weird wheelspin. I'm less certain about this

issue, > but it seems like once the rear wheels begin to spin, there's nothing you > can do but slam on the brakes, if you want to stop it quickly. F1 carsare > far more sensitive to taking your foot off the throttle. Do so, and the > wheelspin should stop immediately, although the sudden engine brakingmight > make you lose grip. F1 cars have almost no flywheel and extremelypowerful

Quoted text (12 lines)

> engine braking. There's nothing that would keep the rear wheels spinning > like they do in this sim. A related problem could be the way the engine > revs. When you're in neutral, and you rev the engine, the revs drop > veeerrryy slooowly when you lift your foot. Again, not realistic. Ever > heard an F1 car rev it's engine? The revs drop immediately. It sounds > completely insane, all twitchy and violent. Sorta reminds me of someone > learning to play the violin, with their bow bouncing off the strings. The > wheelspin and revving problem suggest to me that the cars have > unrealistically large flywheels, but of course there's no way to know for > sure. > > I suppose comparisons between this sim and GP3 are obligatory, so here

goes.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I'd say that F1CS2K probably has a better physics engine, but GP3 seems to > have far more accurate parameters for an F1 car, and consequently GP3 much > better captures the look and feel of F1 racing based on what I've seen on > TV. > > Thanks for listening. Comments are welcome (obviously). > > -Aubrey > >

> Well, the cars feel "natural" I will say that, so I would say the > physics engine itself is pretty good. However, I think the way > the car is modeled is all wrong for a couple of reasons. In the vehicles directory you can edit the .veh file to change all the inertia and flywheel things you were talking about. -Dirt- 2000 White/Red CBR929RR **Jesus saves sinners and redeems them for valuable cash prizes** Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

>"Chris Cavin" <[email hidden]> wrote > In the vehicles directory you can edit the .veh file to change all the > inertia and flywheel things you were talking about. The problem is that when ISI released the title, the way they modeled it was their opinion about how the cars performed. They were wrong, probably even on purpose. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

In article <1D6%5.16822$[email hidden]>, "Aubrey" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Well, the cars feel "natural" I will say that, so I would say the physics >engine itself is pretty good. However, I think the way the car is modeled >is all wrong for a couple of reasons. Good catches. They have been the subject of some threads here by a couple of the apparently very knowledgeable members of the RAS community. Basic answer is that the inertia values in the .veh files are very high. This is clearly so for the vehicle inertia (if it follows form, the numbers are in kgm2. And one can calculate that they are way too high for the mass and dimensions of an F1 car) the other is the flywheel inertia. Some think they set these values for playability. Perhaps to account for the limited calculation rate. Change the values to suit your taste.

When F12000 was released, the settings to adjust inertia, etc., were quickly made available (by Gregor). Many people here NEVER bothered with those settings, and instead chose to rip the sim, and say things like, "It's no GPL". I'm sure ISI released it the way they did on purpose. It makes sense to compensate for the lack of real-world feedback because 99.99% of the public who buys it will benefit. It only takes a hard core simmer a few seconds to make the adjustments. Never forget, a perfect physics model which plugs in perfect numbers is just as unrealistic as a space-zombie / monster truck / killer tomato / arcade racer (remember GPL?). David G Fisher "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:25c%5.85119$[email hidden]... > >"Chris Cavin" <[email hidden]> wrote > > In the vehicles directory you can edit the .veh file to change all the > > inertia and flywheel things you were talking about. > > > The problem is that when ISI released the title, the way they modeled itwas > their opinion about how the cars performed. They were wrong, probablyeven

Quoted text (9 lines)

> on purpose. > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

Bravo, David, bravo! Well-said! -- JB F1CS2K Rank 131.8670 In article <Jme%5.184644$[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: > When F12000 was released, the settings to adjust inertia, etc., werequickly > made available (by Gregor). Many people here NEVER bothered with those > settings, and instead chose to rip the sim, and say thingslike, "It's no > GPL". I'm sure ISI released it the way they did on purpose. It makessense > to compensate for the lack of real-world feedback because 99.99% ofthe > public who buys it will benefit. It only takes a hard core simmer afew > seconds to make the adjustments. Never forget, a perfect physicsmodel which > plugs in perfect numbers is just as unrealistic as a space-zombie /monster

Quoted text (8 lines)

> truck / killer tomato / arcade racer (remember GPL?). > > David G Fisher > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:25c%5.85119$[email hidden]... > > >"Chris Cavin" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > In the vehicles directory you can edit the .veh file to change

all the > > > inertia and flywheel things you were talking about. > > > > > > The problem is that when ISI released the title, the way theymodeled it > was > > their opinion about how the cars performed. They were wrong,probably

Quoted text (17 lines)

> even > > on purpose. > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > -- May the Downforce be with you... > > -- http://www.WeRace.net > > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't > realise > > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > > > > > > >

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

I just got F1CS2K and I think it's really fun. I don't think I there's enough wheelspin when I stomp on the gas comin' out of a corner in first gear at low RPM (like Indy). However, this may be setup-related. What I do think after driving many laps at Indy is that I think this could be compared to a good champ car physics model. What do you all think? God bless, Loren

>"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > When F12000 was released, the settings to adjust inertia, etc., werequickly > made available (by Gregor). Many people here NEVER bothered with those > settings, and instead chose to rip the sim, and say things like, "It's no > GPL". It was no GPL. I dislike any modern F1 sim, none of them appeal to my demands. Can't you understand that? We don't want flashy graphics, we want a hardcore game engine. ISI has yet to give us that. Like I care about the helicopter, take it out it will leave more cycles for the physics! > I'm sure ISI released it the way they did on purpose. It makes sense > to compensate for the lack of real-world feedback because 99.99% of the > public who buys it will benefit. So you would rather have a simulation that on purpose creates a false impression of reality, compared to a simulation that on purpose creates reality even if it gives false impressions? So you like it when they lie to customer into thinking it's how a real F1 drives? -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"David Masten" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:91jltn$1hj0$[email hidden]... > In article <1D6%5.16822$[email hidden]>,"Aubrey" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Well, the cars feel "natural" I will say that, so I would say the physics > >engine itself is pretty good. However, I think the way the car ismodeled > >is all wrong for a couple of reasons. > > Good catches. They have been the subject of some threads here by a coupleof > the apparently very knowledgeable members of the RAS community. Basicanswer > is that the inertia values in the .veh files are very high. This isclearly > so for the vehicle inertia (if it follows form, the numbers are in kgm2.And > one can calculate that they are way too high for the mass and dimensionsof an > F1 car) the other is the flywheel inertia. > > Some think they set these values for playability. Perhaps to account > for the limited calculation rate. Change the values to suit your taste. > I must have missed theose threads. Everything I've read about this sim just oozed over the physics. But thanks to you and Chris Cavin for pointing out the .veh files. Looks interesting! I'll poke around in there next chance I get.

Hmmm. You'd think he would have them up on his website then, huh? I don't collect tweaks... i look for them when i need them. David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Jme%5.184644$[email hidden]... > When F12000 was released, the settings to adjust inertia, etc., werequickly > made available (by Gregor). Many people here NEVER bothered with those > settings, and instead chose to rip the sim, and say things like, "It's no > GPL". I'm sure ISI released it the way they did on purpose. It makes sense > to compensate for the lack of real-world feedback because 99.99% of the > public who buys it will benefit. It only takes a hard core simmer a few > seconds to make the adjustments. Never forget, a perfect physics modelwhich > plugs in perfect numbers is just as unrealistic as a space-zombie /monster

Quoted text (31 lines)

> truck / killer tomato / arcade racer (remember GPL?). > > David G Fisher > > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:25c%5.85119$[email hidden]... > > >"Chris Cavin" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > In the vehicles directory you can edit the .veh file to change all the > > > inertia and flywheel things you were talking about. > > > > > > The problem is that when ISI released the title, the way they modeled it > was > > their opinion about how the cars performed. They were wrong, probably > even > > on purpose. > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > -- May the Downforce be with you... > > -- http://www.WeRace.net > > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't > realise > > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > > > > > >

Also, keep in mind that some people are very uncomfortable editing system files. They just like to install and play. Not everyone who is in a newsgroup is an expert.

Oh no not again!! Deja vu is looming very very largely in my mind at the moment. Didn't we do all this to death when F12K came out? Iain "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Urh%5.96720$i%[email hidden]... > >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote > > When F12000 was released, the settings to adjust inertia, etc., were > quickly > > made available (by Gregor). Many people here NEVER bothered with those > > settings, and instead chose to rip the sim, and say things like, "It'sno > > GPL". > > It was no GPL. I dislike any modern F1 sim, none of them appeal to my > demands. Can't you understand that? We don't want flashy graphics, wewant > a hardcore game engine. ISI has yet to give us that. Like I care aboutthe

Quoted text (25 lines)

> helicopter, take it out it will leave more cycles for the physics! > > > > > I'm sure ISI released it the way they did on purpose. It makes sense > > to compensate for the lack of real-world feedback because 99.99% of the > > public who buys it will benefit. > > So you would rather have a simulation that on purpose creates a false > impression of reality, compared to a simulation that on purpose creates > reality even if it gives false impressions? > > > > So you like it when they lie to customer into thinking it's how a real F1 > drives? > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

>"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > Oh no not again!! Deja vu is looming very very largely in my mind at the > moment. > Didn't we do all this to death when F12K came out? Yeah, but I can't resist replying to David :) Sometimes it's entertaining, especially when he doesn't run off and actually stays for a couple of arguments. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:09:41 GMT, "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote >> Oh no not again!! Deja vu is looming very very largely in my mind at the >> moment. >> Didn't we do all this to death when F12K came out? > > >Yeah, but I can't resist replying to David :) Sometimes it's >entertaining, especially when he doesn't run off and actually stays for a >couple of arguments.

Unfortunately that allmost never happens :( Don't worry, I'll keep trying too. Andre

"UnserFan1" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I just got F1CS2K and I think it's really fun. I don't think I there'senough > wheelspin when I stomp on the gas comin' out of a corner in first gear atlow > RPM (like Indy). However, this may be setup-related. What I do thinkafter Make sure you have traction control (and everything else) toggled off. -- [email hidden] > driving many laps at Indy is that I think this could be compared to a good > champ car physics model. What do you all think? > > God bless, > Loren

>Make sure you have traction control (and everything else) toggled off. I do! :) The aids were the first thing that went! :o) God bless, Loren