F1RS physics

I have been playing F1RS for 2 weeks now and absolutely love the game. I'm amazed at the smoothness of the game and the sense of speed. The graphics is also the best I've seem in a racing sim, but the physics in this sim is quite another story. Is it me or does the computer controlled cars seem to run on rails. I can usually spin my car if I breath on it the wrong way but for some reason the computer controlled cars have as much traction as a fully loaded 18 wheeler. When I ram a car in front of me in a turn, the realistic and most probable outcome would be me sending him off onto the grass and into a spin, but in this sim it's me that goes flying off the track while he just keeps going like nothing had happened. The only time I can make the computer opponent lose control of his car is if I run into him at full speed and split the car in half. The physics of my car seems to feel just right so I'm puzzled at why the programmers couldn't implement the same physics into the rest of the cars. Larry

Lawrence, I've noticed that the F1RS opponent AI is very good--so good that it seems too realistic (they never make mistakes). I'm not sure about running into them (I try not too), but I'm also not the best driver, so I can't last long enough to see if they do make mistakes and spin out without cause. Anyone else have comments? Tom Anderson

..... Hi, I think there are two answers to your question. 1. Because it takes more cpu power to simulate the "realistic" dynamics of the car that one is driving compared to the "simplified" dynamics of the computer opponents. 2. It is more complicated (and probably therefore more cpu consuming) to program the AI for an advanced car dynamics model compared to a simplified one. Someone posted a message a while ago saying that the computer opponents in F1RS behaves more realistic in a fast computer compared to a slower computer, but I don't know if that is true or not. /Jesper vcard.vcf < 1K Download

> I have been playing F1RS for 2 weeks now and absolutely love the game. I'm snip

Quoted text (8 lines)

> When I ram a car in front of me in a turn, the > realistic and most probable outcome would be me sending him off onto the > grass and into a spin, but in this sim it's me that goes flying off the > track while he just keeps going like nothing had happened. The only time I > can make the computer opponent lose control of his car is if I run into him > at full speed and split the car in half. The physics of my car seems to > feel just right so I'm puzzled at why the programmers couldn't implement > the same physics into the rest of the cars.

Two words: CPU cycles! You just can't use the same physics for all cars on track. OTOH, if you hit an AI car they should react correctly. I saw this in ICR2 as well. You hit them, you spin out, he keeps on going... l8er ronny -- Toys'R'Us '99: "So, would you like a hand gun with that action figure, kiddo?" |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I've noticed that the F1RS opponent AI is very good--so good that it seems >too realistic >(they never make mistakes). I'm not sure about running into them (I try not >too), but I'm >also not the best driver, so I can't last long enough to see if they do >make mistakes >and spin out without cause. Anyone else have comments?

I've watched a few races and I've seen a few computer car accidents. Usually shunts which involve one car getting a busted front wing and sometimes a front tire while the ahead car either is unscathed or might get rear wing/tire damage. Generally they limp along until the pit area, get repaired, and continue racing. In one case, Schumacher never pitted, and raced the rest of the way, many laps, with a busted front wing. He went from second to laps behind. So the pit-strategy AI botched in that case. The usual retirement is due to a blown engine. One of the more amusing "minor problems" is with the gearbox. In one race, Panis lost 3rd and 4th gears. But overall, too many cars finish races, far too few accidents, especially those leading to retirements. 'll also note that the warmup times are often faster than the qual times. Aren 't warmups usually run on full fuel, and with harder tires? you'll see no retirements except for blown engines (and out of f, It also seems that the leaders in qualifying (accelerated or skipped) too coincidently match the actual '96 qualifying order. While I'm ranting, I'll also note that the warmup times are often faster than the qual times. Aren't warmups usually run on full fuel, and with harder tires? My main beefs I have with the in-race AI are, like others have pointed out, that the computer cars really hold the line. Passing backmarkers is an exercise in frustration (for the other computer drivers that is :-)). And they keep trying at the same place, never learning. For instance, Schumie tried to pass someone at Spa at Eau Rouge nearly every lap. Usually, he'd near-lose control, drop back, and thus not be able to make the easier pass on the following straight. He'd catch up by the back of the track, try to pass around Blanchimont, and every lap ride the bump strips until having to duck behind. And, as in all race sims, there's no sign of team play. Teamates will jeopordize each other in passing games. They shouldn't do that (unless their names are Senna and Prost :-)). Overall, the graphics strike me as the one terrific aspect. The rest, I'm reserving judgement.